| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - If Obama were a Republican...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


If Obama were a Republican...

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: If Obama were a Republican...
    Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 04:42
the mainstream press as voiced by it's supposed conscience "The Opinion Editorials" and the entertainment industry as voiced by all the supposed humanitarian actors/actresses, would be flaying him alive, a la "Bush Flambe style". This is the hypocrisy of silence that i am talking about. Just a sample...

President signs NDAA into law that which means terror suspects can be indefinitely detained without a trial
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/obama-makes-it-official-suspected-terrorists-can-be-indefinitely-detained-without-trial/46818/

Courts Ok's immunity for telecoms in wiretap case because they helped the Feds
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501366_162-57350084/court-oks-immunity-for-telecoms-in-wiretap-case/

Under Obama, an emerging global apparatus for targeted drone killings
http://bangordailynews.com/2011/12/28/politics/under-obama-an-emerging-global-apparatus-for-drone-killing/

And regarding Guantanamo Bay detention camp, what started out as a stop gap for the Bush administration in processing prisoners acquired in a war, only for it to take on a life of it's own with much global condemnation. Chief among those who condemned the camp is our current President, who has now reneged on closing it "because"... will because of the same problems that faced the Bush administration, which now faces his administration; What to do with the detainees?
 
This double standard can only hurt the US by making a mockery of our humanity via selective outrage.

Oh, by the way... happy new year everyone.





Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 11:19
What do you mean, 'If'?
 
Obama's free ride is thanks to his race not his politics.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 11:22
Obama is simply furthering the authoritarian policies demanded by the American electorate year after year. I agree, it is quite sickening and it would be pleasant to see Ron Paul nominated by the Republicans so that a real debate about civil liberties could take place. 
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 14:47
Probably nothing since Bush did all that and himself received no criticism.
 
The only fault that riled up the masses against Bush was Iraq and he easily got away with it. McCain would have been the current president had it not been his infinite idiocy in choosing Palin.
 
Al-Jassas
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 15:53
I was starting to lean a bit to Ron Paul before I found out that he is a racist. Now I don't know who to vote for... Huntsman is too liberal for the RNC so he will never get nominated. Now it is starting to look like Romney is going to get it... so I am at an impasse.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 16:00
Forget the Presidential campaign and concentrate on your local candidates, senate and downward. Concentrate on building gassroots support for the candidates you agree with. That way you stand a chance of influencing what happens higher up further down the road.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 17:30
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Obama is simply furthering the authoritarian policies demanded by the American electorate year after year. I agree, it is quite sickening and it would be pleasant to see Ron Paul nominated by the Republicans so that a real debate about civil liberties could take place. 
 
 
Do Americans really back these sort of policies though? Opinion polls consistently show that US politicians have moved to the right of mainstream sentiment, including Democrats. A majority want decent health care, a fair tax system, and less expenditure on the military. Lobbyists for the affluent and well placed hold so much power now that one could say they have effected a virtual coup d'etat, and, amazingly, can enact their will over and above the average voter. It's no wonder half of Americans don't even bother to vote. One can understand the cynicism.
 
As for Ron Paul, this is a man that would be better off on medication, living in a supervised facility. It is a measure of the decline of the news media, and widespread apathy and ignorance, that he is taken seriously.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 18:23
Yes.
 
Americans, or to be more specific the people who actually vote, are drunk on the kool-aid of "freedom" or more percisely the Ayn Rand version of it. Plus one must not forget that a great chunk actually would vote for lucifer if he was pro-life rather than to vote for a conservative who is pro-abortion (Paul supports banning abortion which explains why he is so high in the republican primary).
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 22:12
I enjoy the fact that some people regard Ron Paul as a deranged crackpot espousing crank ideas, I really do. It shows just how far democratic politics has drifted into a statist quagmire (The examples are manifold, be it banning Islamic headgear in France to the police state in the UK) One may not like Ron Paul's ideas, you may even think him extreme (He is, for the record) but he is raising an almost forgotten political philosophy - classical liberalism, and the Austrian school economics. Like the man, loathe the man, he is a person of principle and an ideal addition to the generic corporatist voices that so dominate American political discourse today and have done for the past half century. his voice is needed, now more than ever, in what is increasingly an illiberal age.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 09:05
There are significant differences between liberals and libertarians however. Liberalism promotes personal freedom to the extent that is reasonable within a larger society, usually considering a moderate balance between the indivdual and community. The type of libertarianism suggested by Paul is really a kind of anarchy for the affluent. No taxes, no control of monetary or fiscal policy, a return to gold and silver coins for trade, no social programs, no consideration of the inherent inequalities of the capitalist system, no regard for the historical experience of unregulated economies, a withdrawal from the UN and other world organizations...........This is  a guy who, to put it as politely as possible, hasn't kept up with his reading. The America he would produce, if all this ideas were actually realized, would be a kind of corporate no-man's land, a wild west ruled by private militias and affluent warlord-CEO's, and perhaps some quasi-sovereign states that would decide to opt out of the madness.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 12:33
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

There are significant differences between liberals and libertarians however. Liberalism promotes personal freedom to the extent that is reasonable within a larger society, usually considering a moderate balance between the indivdual and community. The type of libertarianism suggested by Paul is really a kind of anarchy for the affluent. No taxes, no control of monetary or fiscal policy, a return to gold and silver coins for trade, no social programs, no consideration of the inherent inequalities of the capitalist system, no regard for the historical experience of unregulated economies, a withdrawal from the UN and other world organizations...........This is  a guy who, to put it as politely as possible, hasn't kept up with his reading. The America he would produce, if all this ideas were actually realized, would be a kind of corporate no-man's land, a wild west ruled by private militias and affluent warlord-CEO's, and perhaps some quasi-sovereign states that would decide to opt out of the madness.


Yes, anarchism for the rich, I've heard that spoken about a few times. I'm not interested in his economic views (Which anyway are an extension of his political views -> anti central planning in any form) but rather his positions on civil liberties, which are increasingly 'eccentric' these days. People assume instinctively they have a right to enforce their own prejudices on others - be that anti-smoking, anti-gay marriage, anti-drugs - with the inherent arrogance that that position entails (I am more virtuous and smarter than you hence I demand you desist from your victimless crime, lest you offend me)

You don't have to agree with Ron Paul to think of him as an interesting and necessary voice in American politics.

P.S- When I say a 'Classical Liberal' I'm referring to the various radical movements in the US and western Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century, which held unconventional views regarding civil liberties, anti-corruption, and smaller states.


Edited by Parnell - 02 Jan 2012 at 12:35
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 13:51
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

There are significant differences between liberals and libertarians however. Liberalism promotes personal freedom to the extent that is reasonable within a larger society, usually considering a moderate balance between the indivdual and community. The type of libertarianism suggested by Paul is really a kind of anarchy for the affluent. No taxes, no control of monetary or fiscal policy, a return to gold and silver coins for trade, no social programs, no consideration of the inherent inequalities of the capitalist system, no regard for the historical experience of unregulated economies, a withdrawal from the UN and other world organizations...........This is  a guy who, to put it as politely as possible, hasn't kept up with his reading. The America he would produce, if all this ideas were actually realized, would be a kind of corporate no-man's land, a wild west ruled by private militias and affluent warlord-CEO's, and perhaps some quasi-sovereign states that would decide to opt out of the madness.


Yes, anarchism for the rich, I've heard that spoken about a few times. I'm not interested in his economic views (Which anyway are an extension of his political views -> anti central planning in any form) but rather his positions on civil liberties, which are increasingly 'eccentric' these days. People assume instinctively they have a right to enforce their own prejudices on others - be that anti-smoking, anti-gay marriage, anti-drugs - with the inherent arrogance that that position entails (I am more virtuous and smarter than you hence I demand you desist from your victimless crime, lest you offend me)

You don't have to agree with Ron Paul to think of him as an interesting and necessary voice in American politics.

P.S- When I say a 'Classical Liberal' I'm referring to the various radical movements in the US and western Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century, which held unconventional views regarding civil liberties, anti-corruption, and smaller states.
 
Where Paul makes his departure from the known universe is the point where he fails to understand, or perhaps ignores, that there is a trade-off between individual and community. He idolizes one and discounts the other. This is just as extreme as Mao's ideal of shoving everyone onto a collective farm, just that it is on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Allowing everyone who wants one to own a machine gun my gratify these individuals, and enhance their "freedom", but it will have onerous consequences for the rest of the community, and many of its freedoms. Allowing drug use without considering the many human vulnerabilities around this issue may be considerd a sort of freedom, at least in a philosophical sense, but again, it will have effects on the rest of the community, and its freedom. Paul is obsessed with the idea of the individual, not too strong a word I would say, because he is ignoring so many social interconnections in order to  promote his hobby horse. One must also be suspicious about his actual conviction in these sorts of "freedoms" as his focus seems only on the federal government. He wants to shove off myriad powers onto the states, and let them do as they please, as though there were some sort of inherent wisdom at the local level that is abscent at a higher level. I wonder what the black kids that needed federal troops as escort to go to school in the south in the '50s and '60s think of that.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 14:58
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

P.S- When I say a 'Classical Liberal' I'm referring to the various radical movements in the US and western Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century, which held unconventional views regarding civil liberties, anti-corruption, and smaller states.
 
'Classical Liberal' to me, and I think generally in political science is best exemplified by J.S.Mill, and in the 20th century by Salvador de Madariaga. The Oxford Manifesto of 1947 summed up their beliefs.
 
I doubt very much that any classical Liberal would agree with Ron Paul's general beliefs.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jan 2012 at 15:16
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

I enjoy the fact that some people regard Ron Paul as a deranged crackpot espousing crank ideas, I really do.
 
 
People consider Paul a deranged crackpot because he is one. He says the income tax is unconstitutional despite the fact that there is a whole amendment about it in the beloved constitution. 
 
One must be mighty high on meth to say something like that..... or he is indeed just a crackpot.
 
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

It shows just how far democratic politics has drifted into a statist quagmire (The examples are manifold, be it banning Islamic headgear in France to the police state in the UK) One may not like Ron Paul's ideas, you may even think him extreme (He is, for the record) but he is raising an almost forgotten political philosophy - classical liberalism, and the Austrian school economics. Like the man, loathe the man, he is a person of principle and an ideal addition to the generic corporatist voices that so dominate American political discourse today and have done for the past half century. his voice is needed, now more than ever, in what is increasingly an illiberal age.
 
Paul isn't a classical liberal, he is the antithesis of classical liberals. Just as the state wishes to force people to adopt certain things Ron Paul wishes the exact thing but from the other extreme. His world means unions will be banned even if they were voluntary and despite the fact that they are an essential part of the "free market" where the traded commodity is labour.
 
As for the Austrian school of Anarchy, enough said by me.
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 02 Jan 2012 at 15:21
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2012 at 05:58
I am sure you are already aware of my opinion of Mr Obama through my reply to this thread:

http://www.worldhistoria.com/does-president-obama-deserve-to-be-reelected_topic127225.html

He is there because he was put there by those who hold the real wealth and power, to push through their aims while quelling rising discontent within the Americans public. All the while a rather spectacular performance has been put on, where he has been made to appear to be fighting for certain reforms and being frustrated but in actual fact he is wading into battles which he is unequipped to fight and then retreats after making a few rousing speeches.

It is ingenius, and a vast improvement over the Bush era publicity which  simply aimed to portray a likable average guy trying to do the best for his country. This time around, people on both sides are fooled into thinking someone is really fighting for them and making progress. Which, for those who hold wealth and power, is a great deal more desirable than the 2008 situation - being faced with a large segment of the populace which feels they have no real representation and are willing to explore new ideas and candidates as a solution.

Instead, the main candidates remain firmly on course to deliver the policy aims which those with wealth and power desire, while simultaneously calming an increasingly disenfranchised public and maintaining the illusion that those people have an advocate.

Obama is Bush where it matters, willing to make a few cosmetic changes to areas that don't affect the nation's economic structure. His PR is better than Bush's. But he also has only been in power 1/3 the time that Bush had. At the end of 8 years of Obama, Americans will likely have a very different opinion of the man.


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.