Obama V: For Vendetta

[Kepler]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

But aren't most of the people sheep who don't really care who is in charge as long as they get their share of the rice bowl?? If the dictator has a decent standard of living for his people, he'll be set for life. After he/she dies, the power vacuum is what leads to trouble.

That's one of those great enduring questions: are humans "naturally" political the way we are, say, gossipy, or do we need to be made (or make ourselves) political?

One American narrative says wanting government of, by and for the people is universal: only lack of freedom and opportunity has prevented every people in every age from fulfilling their desire to be... American. That's so parochial is sounds like a Parisian.

But on the other hand, spending 90% of their daylight hours working on the rice harvest probably makes people obsessed with the security of their rice bowl.

Moral: stay affluent enough to worry about it.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

The right always sells lowering govt spending. But once in power, the numbers show the right spends every bit as much as the left. They just spend it on stuff that holds little benefit for its citizens like tanks.

But where the real difference comes in is the right's need to control society...which is why the right is really about big govt. Indeed, the spirit of the constitution was to protect US citizens from governmental abuses of power. Meanwhile, the right consistently attempts to control free speech and freedom of expression. From media controls to wiretapping its citizens to limiting the choices of its citizens to make choices for themselves. It even tried to use the US constitution, which the founding fathers created to guarentee its citizens rights, to limit them by pushing an amendment to ban gay marriages. Indeed, the attempts to use the US constitution against its original design are very similar to Christian conservatives use of Christianity to enforce the opposite of the compassion, peace and acceptance of what Christ actually stood for.

Which is why those of us with "true" conservative/leaning-toward-libertarian views are disgusted that these things are done under the banner of "the right." I consider myself conservative, and hold the following views:

1) No displays of religion on government property or funded by the government. No prayer in schools, etc - limits the government's power to influence people's religious views.

2) Pro choice. Limit the government's power to interfere with your reproductive decisions.

3) Pro gay marriage. Actually, I think state governments should stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. They should ONLY offer Civil Union Contracts, since that is where government authority should end - it's up to religion to "sanctify" marriage, not the government.

4) Leaning toward legalization of marijuana. Never tried it, don't plan to, and will still continue to think that those who use it are making a stupid decision. But it's their decision, not the government's. The ends just don't justify the means in this case - I don't think society would be noticeably worse off (if at all), and the net swing in government revenue (- the enforcement costs, + major new tax revenue) is completely worth the risk. Any negative consequences that might begin to materialize can be handled through regulation (as with alcohol) instead of criminalization.

I think these (and other similar views) earn me the "right" to claim the mantle of conservatism; I don't feel like a hypocrite at all when I argue for a smaller, less intrusive government, balanced budgets, and lower taxes.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

I think these (and other similar views) earn me the "right" to claim the mantle of conservatism; I don't feel like a hypocrite at all when I argue for a smaller, less intrusive government, balanced budgets, and lower taxes.

It also means you're not going to win a GOP primary for the next 20 years anywhere east of SoMa or west of SoHo.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Speaking of sheep -- S.773

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1

I hope not, but nothing in this Administration suprises me. What frightens me is they have only been in charge for 8 months.

The fact it was the top headline on Drudge makes me a little suspicious, not to say it's not the case but I'd be interested to see what the actual wording is.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

"movies, and liquor......um, at the end of prohibition."

??? was brokaw told he better now get out of hand??

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

The fact it was the top headline on Drudge makes me a little suspicious, not to say it's not the case but I'd be interested to see what the actual wording is.

It's a plot to stop citizens from emailing guns to each other.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

The fact it was the top headline on Drudge makes me a little suspicious, not to say it's not the case but I'd be interested to see what the actual wording is.

imo... i have to think its one of those things where the language leaves things really open and vague... but the situation in Georgia and other issues shows that the internet will be an active theater in case of a regional war and I think this is a means to gain access and control in case of such warfare...

THAT SAID... an activist administration (like this one but likely not this one) could take this legislation and do all kinds of things to further other goals if they desired and hence its a danger.

That being said, I think we're seeing that cyber-warfare is a said future reality that we will end up seeing.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

-nixon went to china.
-nixon oversaw the start of the epa.
-nixon instituted wage and price controls. (ironically enough, it was carter who had to remove the nixon price controls on oil )
-nixon wanted to get into arms control deals with the red soviets.
-nixon put in quotas for affirmative action.
-nixon put harry blackmun in the SCOTUS .

Yeah.... none of that is anywhere close to the left of trying to shove down a bill making it law for the government to be the arbiter in your medical decisions. You either are just touting the party line or you are naive. Either way, you don't understand the magnitude of HR 3200.

The right always sells lowering govt spending. But once in power, the numbers show the right spends every bit as much as the left.

If you aren't making a joke, you need to explain when the "right" has spent as much as that clown Obama has since he's been in charge. He's been in charge for 8 months, but I'll give you a generous handicap of 3. Show me anytime the "right" has spent as much as much in 2 years as Obama has in his first 8 months. I already know you can't do it. So stop talking like a moron.

Which is why those of us with "true" conservative/leaning-toward-libertarian views are disgusted that these things are done under the banner of "the right." I consider myself conservative, and hold the following views:

1) No displays of religion on government property or funded by the government. No prayer in schools, etc - limits the government's power to influence people's religious views.

2) Pro choice. Limit the government's power to interfere with your reproductive decisions.

3) Pro gay marriage. Actually, I think state governments should stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. They should ONLY offer Civil Union Contracts, since that is where government authority should end - it's up to religion to "sanctify" marriage, not the government.

4) Leaning toward legalization of marijuana. Never tried it, don't plan to, and will still continue to think that those who use it are making a stupid decision. But it's their decision, not the government's. The ends just don't justify the means in this case - I don't think society would be noticeably worse off (if at all), and the net swing in government revenue (- the enforcement costs, + major new tax revenue) is completely worth the risk. Any negative consequences that might begin to materialize can be handled through regulation (as with alcohol) instead of criminalization.

I think these (and other similar views) earn me the "right" to claim the mantle of conservatism; I don't feel like a hypocrite at all when I argue for a smaller, less intrusive government, balanced budgets, and lower taxes.

Bravo. Except for #2 of course. I don't think a woman has a right to murder a life just because it hasn't passed through her vagina yet. I think that's both moronic and immoral.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

That being said, I think we're seeing that cyber-warfare is a said future reality that we will end up seeing.

Then I better get back to WoW training!

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Which is why those of us with "true" conservative/leaning-toward-libertarian views are disgusted that these things are done under the banner of "the right." I consider myself conservative, and hold the following views:

1) No displays of religion on government property or funded by the government. No prayer in schools, etc - limits the government's power to influence people's religious views.

2) Pro choice. Limit the government's power to interfere with your reproductive decisions.

3) Pro gay marriage. Actually, I think state governments should stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. They should ONLY offer Civil Union Contracts, since that is where government authority should end - it's up to religion to "sanctify" marriage, not the government.

4) Leaning toward legalization of marijuana. Never tried it, don't plan to, and will still continue to think that those who use it are making a stupid decision. But it's their decision, not the government's. The ends just don't justify the means in this case - I don't think society would be noticeably worse off (if at all), and the net swing in government revenue (- the enforcement costs, + major new tax revenue) is completely worth the risk. Any negative consequences that might begin to materialize can be handled through regulation (as with alcohol) instead of criminalization.

I think these (and other similar views) earn me the "right" to claim the mantle of conservatism; I don't feel like a hypocrite at all when I argue for a smaller, less intrusive government, balanced budgets, and lower taxes.

This is a platform I can get behind...to bad no conservative who is a politician feels this way. Conservatives in politics believe the government shouldnt intrude unless it is for something they believe which is hypocritical!

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

This is a platform I can get behind...to bad no conservative who is a politician feels this way. Conservatives in politics believe the government shouldnt intrude unless it is for something they believe which is hypocritical!

And how's that any different than a liberal in politics?

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

And how's that any different than a liberal in politics?

Its not, the problem isn't left or right, its in the politician who say one thing and do another. Obama is no different than Bush who is no different than Clinton. Its all about keeping power and making money

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Its not, the problem isn't left or right, its in the politician who say one thing and do another. Obama is no different than Bush who is no different than Clinton. Its all about keeping power and making money

A cynic would hypothesize that the best way for a tiny ruling elite to control a larger electorate under a democratic system would be to arbitrarily divide into two and then stage regular elections, while stifling or co-opting any competitor not from within the in-group, and thus keeping the game going for decades.

But that would just be cynical, and it would only be supported by impossible things like both parties' leadership graduating from the same schools, serving on the same boards of directors, etc.

Japan's conservative party just got booted after 50+ years in office.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

A cynic would hypothesize that the best way for a tiny ruling elite to control a larger electorate under a democratic system would be to arbitrarily divide into two and then stage regular elections, while stifling or co-opting any competitor not from within the in-group, and thus keeping the game going for decades.

But that would just be cynical, and it would only be supported by impossible things like both parties' leadership graduating from the same schools, serving on the same boards of directors, etc.

Japan's conservative party just got booted after 50+ years in office.

The two main problems with being cynical:
1. It's tough to keep up these days.
2. Even though you're right most of the time, it doesn't make you feel better

 

[The Paragon of Virtue]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

2. Even though you're right most of the time, it doesn't make you feel better

Of course it does! Not only are we right, but we make other people feel bad. What could be better?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

If you aren't making a joke, you need to explain when the "right" has spent as much as Obama has since he's been in charge.

Simple. What I said was...that the right spends at least as much as the left.

Reagan tripled Carter's average budget deficit. Bush tripled Clinton's average budget deficit. From a spending standpoint, Bush single handedly saddled the country with Iraq and signed us up for a $1.8 trillion list of bailouts...much of which is being paid for this year. And now a spending stimulus is important as the US economy was torpedoed with the right at the helm.

The left isn't perfect. But its funny how you hear those on the right whine about government reach...and then when in power see the right have such a terrible track record on big government regarding both spending and societal interference.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Simple. What I said was...that the right spends at least as much as the left.

Reagan tripled Carter's average budget deficit. Bush tripled Clinton's average budget deficit. From a spending standpoint, Bush single handedly saddled the country with Iraq and signed us up for a $1.8 trillion list of bailouts...much of which is being paid for this year. And now a spending stimulus is important as the US economy was torpedoed with the right at the helm.

The left isn't perfect. But its funny how you hear those on the right whine about government reach...and then when in power see the right have such a terrible track record on big government regarding both spending and societal interference.

Nice spin - using deficit numbers (which of course depend on both spending and revenue) to blame the executive who happened to be in office, when you could just look directly at the spending numbers and which party controlled the purse strings in Congress. If Clinton gets any fiscal credit at all (and spending went up every single year he was in office), then he has to at least share that credit with the Republican congress.

The only period you mention with both a Republican Congress and Executive is Bush II, which was a complete disaster. Let's hope that the Dems do a better job now that they control both branches.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

And how's that any different than a liberal in politics?

It isn't but that wasn't what I was saying nice try though. I didnt mention liberals at all because hey guess what, they weren't part of Lynah's post.

 

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Its not, the problem isn't left or right, its in the politician who say one thing and do another. Obama is no different than Bush who is no different than Clinton. Its all about keeping power and making money

Bingo.

 

[Jon]

Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Its not, the problem isn't left or right, its in the politician who say one thing and do another. Obama is no different than Bush who is no different than Clinton. Its all about keeping power and making money

Bingo.

Walrus wins the thread.