World Politics

Page 401 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I'm also old enough to remember Alpe, and I have to say that your view that the current President is "worse" than Nixon shocks and distresses me. I thought you were a reasonable man, even though your views are far removed from mine. This opinion totally destroys your credibility in my eyes - it's a truly shameful thing to even compare Obama to Nixon, never mind expressing a preference for the latter as being 'less bad'. It's also a shameful thing to compare this President, whose best intentions have been thwarted at every turn by a truly demented opposition, to the war-mongering Chaney-Rove puppet idiot who preceded him, and who was able to get away with murder under the guise of national security lies:eek:
Give me a frick'n break. I almost tossed up that beer and barbecue I had yesterday all over my computer when I read this "victim" crap.

He had majorities in both houses after the sweeping election in 2008. He had the bully pulpit. He either allowed himself to be screwed over or his campaign was all a bunch of BS. Either way, he is a disaster. He has no backbone, an incoherent basic political theme, and is a blatant liar.

As for the war-mongering clowns before him, you and I are on the same page but he has done zero to reverse the military-industrial complex that fuels this "war on terror", while ensuring its continuation with the self-feeding tit for tat military strikes. He has done zero about the human rights issue pertaining to detention of people without due process. Wall street reform has gone nowhere. He campaigned on all of these issues, and has done nothing and even expanded some of the previous policies. He is so weak and pathetic or much of the same as before that the rubes voted for the GOP only 2 years after Bush. WTF?

You, red, and others are either too blinded by your party loyalty or are just plain stupid. Open your eyes, and stop being an apologist for something that is undefendable. Of course, what are you gonna do, vote for one of the GOP clowns? You are a tool that is being used and taken advantage of by fear for the alternative, which is not really any different
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Nice link, gregod.

I was reading thru the comments sections and somebody said all republicans should read this editorial, then another wrote it would need to be audio because most can't read. I think that about sums it up.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
ChrisE said:
Nice link, gregod.

I was reading thru the comments sections and somebody said all republicans should read this editorial, then another wrote it would need to be audio because most can't read. I think that about sums it up.
nice avatar. where have i seen that before? :D
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
What UnAmerican really is.

""It's time to start calling people out - because there's no more room in this critical debate over America's future for individuals who are fundamentally anti-American. That includes the politicians - the so-called newsmen - the phony economists - and the greedy CEOs who have no problem destroying this nation just for a few bucks. They spew poll-tested terms like "job creators" to push for even more tax breaks for transnational corporations that already pay nothing in taxes. While forgetting that this nation was founded as a result of an anti-corporate revolt against the world's largest transnational corporation at the time - the British East India Tea Company. They call up hucksters like Thomas Friedman to tout so-called Free Trade policies that sell off our factories and manufacturing jobs to the lowest bidders around the world. While forgetting that our nation's first Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton laid out an 11-point plan literally called "The American Way" that promoted protectionsism and promoted American industires - and NOT so-called Free Trade. They give millionaires and billionaires the power to run amok in our politics - claiming that corporations are people - and as people have a right to free speech - and to dump as much money in our elections as they damn well please. While forgetting that none of the founding fathers considered corporations important enough to not even mention them in our nation's Constitution.
"" cont---

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hartmann-Here-s-what-UnAm-by-Thom-Hartmann-110903-655.html
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
redtreviso said:
What UnAmerican really is.

""It's time to start calling people out - because there's no more room in this critical debate over America's future for individuals who are fundamentally anti-American. That includes the politicians - the so-called newsmen - the phony economists - and the greedy CEOs who have no problem destroying this nation just for a few bucks. They spew poll-tested terms like "job creators" to push for even more tax breaks for transnational corporations that already pay nothing in taxes. While forgetting that this nation was founded as a result of an anti-corporate revolt against the world's largest transnational corporation at the time - the British East India Tea Company. They call up hucksters like Thomas Friedman to tout so-called Free Trade policies that sell off our factories and manufacturing jobs to the lowest bidders around the world. While forgetting that our nation's first Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton laid out an 11-point plan literally called "The American Way" that promoted protectionsism and promoted American industires - and NOT so-called Free Trade. They give millionaires and billionaires the power to run amok in our politics - claiming that corporations are people - and as people have a right to free speech - and to dump as much money in our elections as they damn well please. While forgetting that none of the founding fathers considered corporations important enough to not even mention them in our nation's Constitution.
"" cont---

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hartmann-Here-s-what-UnAm-by-Thom-Hartmann-110903-655.html
check out the article i quoted above. there is a section expressing a similar sentiment in perhaps a less hyperbolic way.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Amsterhammer said:
I'm also old enough to remember Alpe, and I have to say that your view that the current President is "worse" than Nixon shocks and distresses me. I thought you were a reasonable man, even though your views are far removed from mine. This opinion totally destroys your credibility in my eyes - it's a truly shameful thing to even compare Obama to Nixon, never mind expressing a preference for the latter as being 'less bad'. It's also a shameful thing to compare this President, whose best intentions have been thwarted at every turn by a truly demented opposition, to the war-mongering Chaney-Rove puppet idiot who preceded him, and who was able to get away with murder under the guise of national security lies:eek:




And this, for those of you in the US who might not realize it, is the view pretty much shared across the political spectrum by the rest of the civilized world.



I can only assume that this particular poster from Texas misguidedly thought that this reply was either witty or amusing, in which case a smilie would not have gone amiss. Words fail me if Glenn actually believes this sh!t.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/...y-20-2009.html

Thanks for posting this link, red - it certainly opened my eyes on my Sunday morning - should be required reading. Obama's very public cavings to Hun wing pressure are, nevertheless, still very disappointing. Anything positive or (heaven forbid) 'progressive' is evidently not newsworthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn44sXhLwAM

Also thanks for this link, which demonstrates why so many 'Republicans' can't fathom Ron Paul, and why Paul will never win a nomination.
President Obama is a epic failure. Remember his campaign promise on Energy policy? He has not even tried to produce a real energy policy. All he had to do is copy President Carters Energy policy and put it into action. Instead he failed at that also. He is much worse (if that is how a President should be judged) than Nixon, Ford, Carter, ETC.


I like how you are trying to talk down to the ("those of you in the US who might not realize it") what a bunch of crap. Since those of you in the US are unable to travel around the "civilized world" and understand the "view" that is shared "across the political spectrum". That just shows how you believe you're above everyone else.

No worries about what I said and you calling it "****" (YOU purposely avoided the word filter which is against the rules smart one) It was meant to show how one sided the argument is towards the President Bush crowd when President Obama continues the same policy! President Obama = EPIC FAIL.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
ChrisE said:
Nice link, gregod.

I was reading thru the comments sections and somebody said all republicans should read this editorial, then another wrote it would need to be audio because most can't read. I think that about sums it up.
That is not true. They (republicans) are the same as the demo's.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
President Obama is a epic failure. Remember his campaign promise on Energy policy? He has not even tried to produce a real energy policy. All he had to do is copy President Carters Energy policy and put it into action. Instead he failed at that also. He is much worse (if that is how a President should be judged) than Nixon, Ford, Carter, ETC.


I like how you are trying to talk down to the ("those of you in the US who might not realize it") what a bunch of crap. Since those of you in the US are unable to travel around the "civilized world" and understand the "view" that is shared "across the political spectrum". That just shows how you believe you're above everyone else.

No worries about what I said and you calling it "****" (YOU purposely avoided the word filter which is against the rules smart one) It was meant to show how one sided the argument is towards the President Bush crowd when President Obama continues the same policy! President Obama = EPIC FAIL.
McCain would have died in his sleep already and we'd have President Palin.. MUCH MORE THAN EPIC FAIL AVERTED
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
redtreviso said:
McCain would have died in his sleep already and we'd have President Palin.. MUCH MORE THAN EPIC FAIL AVERTED
Well what makes you think McCain would have kicked the bucket already? He is still messing up congress.

But having Palin as anything including Vice President is a very scary thought. I would agree that it would be a "much more than epic fail averted".
 
ChrisE said:
Give me a frick'n break. I almost tossed up that beer and barbecue I had yesterday all over my computer when I read this "victim" crap.

He had majorities in both houses after the sweeping election in 2008. He had the bully pulpit. He either allowed himself to be screwed over or his campaign was all a bunch of BS. Either way, he is a disaster. He has no backbone, an incoherent basic political theme, and is a blatant liar.

As for the war-mongering clowns before him, you and I are on the same page but he has done zero to reverse the military-industrial complex that fuels this "war on terror", while ensuring its continuation with the self-feeding tit for tat military strikes. He has done zero about the human rights issue pertaining to detention of people without due process. Wall street reform has gone nowhere. He campaigned on all of these issues, and has done nothing and even expanded some of the previous policies. He is so weak and pathetic or much of the same as before that the rubes voted for the GOP only 2 years after Bush. WTF?

You, red, and others are either too blinded by your party loyalty or are just plain stupid. Open your eyes, and stop being an apologist for something that is undefendable. Of course, what are you gonna do, vote for one of the GOP clowns? You are a tool that is being used and taken advantage of by fear for the alternative, which is not really any different
This goes to show you that the politicians don't count. They tow a line established by others, who nobody votes for. Anyone who works for change either has to make grotesque compromises, or else risks assassination. That's the truth.

At any rate I was in Umbria today and chanced upon this marxist protest in Todi against what the posters claimed was a historical revisionism of the Bolshevik October Revolution aired on Italian television, on the RAI 2 channel, a national station. Complete with the futurist, Olympian imagery of Lenin leading the proletariate.

I realized how far removed I was, naturally with my students, from the current US political debate.

What tools, indeed.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
That is not true. They (republicans) are the same as the demo's.
It is a joke but in reality let's look at the extremes in both cases.

The ignorant/stupid/whatever that vote for far left wing policies and politicians do so because of the promises it seems to afford them. Welfare, EEOC, social security, civil rights, health care, etc. They vote this way definitely for different reasons than the stupid on the right. These are easy things to mentally grasp, though how these things are paid for in a capitalistic society is more complex to understand.

A large number of the ignorant/stupid/whatever that vote for tea party type politicians do so because of what was written in the article. Did you read it? Basically, instead of critically looking at policies that directly effect their every day lives, they base their vote instead of conjured up enemies, religious bigotry, racism, homophobia.

Voting for something not workable in either case does seem stupid. I don't think either extreme type of govt. is workable, but I definitely don't think the far right wing version is because of what history has taught us. Over history, societies have tended to become more socialistic, not less. And, the obviously assinine tenet that everybody could thrive in a society without rules for business and a government that does not work for the have-nots.

But, the undeducated and poor right wing base is made up of a lot of individuals that are voting for policy that is directly hurting them, all in the name of bigotry, religion, etc. These emotional issues are used to work them into voting for policies they, the country, and the basic human character are not equipped to handle. They are useful idiots. The big shakers behind right wing politics could give a rats azz about these BS issues. They are after shortsighted $, and the low iq redneck down the street voting republican is a means to an end.

I may have told you this before, but my father worked commercial construction for 50 years. He was discussing politics with a laborer one time and the laborer said he would always vote republican because he didn't want the Dems to "take his guns away". This guy made about $6/hr at the time, but he had health insurance and retirement that was a result of the union. He had SS. He had little way to increase his standard of living or any type of cushion in case he or his family came across hardship, other than the union. The guy was not very smart, in more ways than one. Some people are not big entrepreneurs like scott, you know, even though if anybody works hard enough they can be president of Exxon. :rolleyes:

Now, I am not going all pro-union here but this guy was actively voting against something that he basically owed his well-being to. He was not on the verge of becoming David Koch and this pesky union business was holding him back....now that unions are basically gone he is probably making no more than he was then, with no benefits, even if he had a job. It will just be utopia when the minimum wage is abolished, as bachmann has floated recently. :rolleyes: It would be too difficult to believe this stupid shyt is happening if you didn't see it for yourself.

Does him voting republican for the imaginary BS reason that "them dems want to take his guns away" make him equally stupid as somebody that pulls the lever for a dem without understranding the issues?

One other thing about this guy, where I alluded that he may not even have a job. Illegal immigration is a favorite emotional tool to whip up the rubes. I don't believe one minute that the majority of the real power behind the right wing movements want this steady flow of cheap untraceable labor to stop. That is why you see more savvy long term wingnut politicians like Perry and Bush toe the line on this subject, vs their rabid freshman cohorts. If illegal immigration stopped tomorrow and all illegals were deported, then Americans would have to fill all of these blue collar jobs. We can't have that....it would be bad for the economy lol.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
rhubroma said:
This goes to show you that the politicians don't count. They tow a line established by others, who nobody votes for. Anyone who works for change either has to make grotesque compromises, or else risks assassination. That's the truth. At any rate I was in Umbria today and chanced upon this marxist protest in Todi against what the posters claimed was a historical revisionism of the Bolshevik October Revolution aired on Italian television, on the RAI 2 channel, a national station. Complete with the futurist, Olympian imagery of Lenin leading the proletariate.

I realized how far removed I was, naturally with my students, from the current US political debate.

What tools, indeed.
Thus, that is why I have decided not to vote until a viable alternative comes along. I think it will happen, but things will need to crash first. I will no longer waste my time until that alternative comes, or the dems stop being puzzies.

As for assassination for anybody that bucks the system.....as we have discussed, what Obama is doing is baffling vs his campaign rhetoric. His actions lead to many WTF moments, which in turn lead to statements like yours.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
""People near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder often oppose policies that help those below them, according to a new paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research. The phenomenon is called "last-place aversion."

"It's the basic human need to avoid feeling like we ourselves are in last place," she says. "Or maybe, put a bit more negatively, it's our need to feel like there's at least one person we can feel superior to or look down on."""

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/04/140116142/avoiding-last-place-some-things-we-dont-outgrow?ft=3&f=1001,1003,1004,1090
 
I stand behind what I said before. Despite being corrupted by Watergate, Nixon was merely an average to below average President with some up's and downs on his watch. Carter was a decent man with at least some vision for the future, who also made several poor decisions. Those times were tough, but for the average person they weren't anywhere near as bad as now. Bush was considerably worse than either of them. Way worse. Obama is close behind because of what Chris, Glenn, and most people in America have been saying, what we have been writing about for months on end here, elsewhere, I won't repeat it all.

Excellent link Gregod. That really, truly encapsulated it all in the most incisive way, and should be read by everyone. The system is just rotten to he core. And with the way the SC has ruled, and no incentives from Congress or the President to change it, we are now seeing the results of it, and will for some time. It's also a fascinating analysis of what has happened to the GOP from within.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I stand behind what I said before. Despite being corrupted by Watergate, Nixon was merely an average to below average President with some up's and downs on his watch. Carter was a decent man with at least some vision for the future, who also made several poor decisions. Those times were tough, but for the average person they weren't anywhere near as bad as now. Bush was considerably worse than either of them. Way worse. Obama is close behind because of what Chris, Glenn, and most people in America have been saying, what we have been writing about for months on end here, elsewhere, I won't repeat it all.

Excellent link Gregod. That really, truly encapsulated it all in the most incisive way, and should be read by everyone. The system is just rotten to he core. And with the way the SC has ruled, and no incentives from Congress or the President to change it, we are now seeing the results of it, and will for some time. It's also a fascinating analysis of what has happened to the GOP from within.
History won't see it that way.. but whatever makes you feel good when you vote for a lunatic like Bachman or Palin or think it doesn't matter..
 
Why on earth you would translate my assertion that Obama is a poor president into thinking I'd vote for Bachman or Palin or support the lunatic fringe of the TP is beyond me. To me that's Obama's best hope for getting re-elected. The other side may very well produce someone actually worse.

Do you really, truly, honestly think Obama is a good president?
 
ChrisE said:
Thus, that is why I have decided not to vote until a viable alternative comes along. I think it will happen, but things will need to crash first. I will no longer waste my time until that alternative comes, or the dems stop being puzzies.

As for assassination for anybody that bucks the system.....as we have discussed, what Obama is doing is baffling vs his campaign rhetoric. His actions lead to many WTF moments, which in turn lead to statements like yours.[/QUOTE]

As extreme as it may sound, what's needed is a revolution. Because anything less than a revolution means collapsing into grotesque compromises, which explains the baffling inconsistencies between the actual deeds and the campaign compromises.

Just look at how the opposition denounced and branded him, as a revolutionary, as a god-forsaken socialist, when the changes he was asking for, by European standards, on both the right and the left, were merely normal policies of civility. And it worked. Even some with in his own party balked and caved in to the pressures of ideology and the plutocracy.

It seems to me that during the Cold War America was hell bent on "saving" civilization by tenaciously combating revolutionary marxism and socialism in any form, that in short it fought a revolution against revolution and won.

In the wake of the victory the most extreme ideologues and business elite, even a certain class of the country's intelligentsia, were convinced that history was over, that America's form of unfettered liberal, free-market capitalism was destined to conquer and win over the whole world. That the privatization of everything would allow the national governments themselves to become obsolete relics of the past, and that the corporations would thus replace them as guiding society and civilization on the path, which is its destiny, toward ever more marvelous forms of progress and well-being.

What such people didn't account for, though, was the amount of the world's population and even the US' own, who don't feel that this prophecy will at all lead to the happy world they in many ways cynically encourage and promote (even by military means when necessary). This has also been made more clear given the excesses of financial capitalism, corporate greed, the conflict of interests this inevitably breeds and the social unrest we have recently witnessed throughout the globe.

So history is over (again), yet human civilization continues to develop in unforeseen and surprising ways, especially not in the ways they at all thought they could bring about by coercion and force.

Revolutions can take on many forms, they can be passive or aggressive. But until there is a fundamental change in the US two-party political system, for which private business and all the interests of private business reign supreme, means that everything will 'change' so that everything remains the same.
 
ChrisE said:
Thus, that is why I have decided not to vote until a viable alternative comes along. I think it will happen, but things will need to crash first. I will no longer waste my time until that alternative comes, or the dems stop being puzzies.

As for assassination for anybody that bucks the system.....as we have discussed, what Obama is doing is baffling vs his campaign rhetoric. His actions lead to many WTF moments, which in turn lead to statements like yours.
As extreme as it may sound, what's needed is a revolution. Because anything less than a revolution means collapsing into grotesque compromises, which explains the baffling inconsistencies between the actual deeds and the campaign compromises.

Just look at how the opposition denounced and branded him, as a revolutionary, as a god-forsaken socialist, when the changes he was asking for, by European standards on both the right and the left, were merely normal policies of civility. And it worked. Even some within his own party balked and caved in to the pressures of ideology and the plutocracy.

It seems to me that during the Cold War America was hell bent on "saving" civilization by tenaciously combating revolutionary marxism and socialism in any form, that in short it fought a revolution against revolution and won, partly on sheer quantities of capital. Now there has been, however, an over-zealousness in giving free reign to the winner's cause and in applying it to every facet of our lives. It is a form of extremism, market funadmanetalism, that has replaced that which was once combated, with equal tenacity and equal zeal. While this has pushed the country dangerously far to the right.

In the wake of the victory the most extreme ideologues and business elite, even a certain class of the country's intelligentsia, were convinced that history was over, that America's form of unfettered liberal, free-market capitalism was destined to conquer and win over the whole world. That the privatization of everything would allow the national governments themselves to become obsolete relics of the past, and that the corporations would thus replace them in guiding society and civilization on the path, which is its destiny, toward ever more marvelous forms of progress and well-being.

What such people didn't account for, though, was the amount of the world's population and even in much more rare cases the US' own, who don't feel that this prophecy will at all lead to the happy world they in many ways cynically encourage and promote (even by military means when necessary). This has also been made more clear given the excesses of financial capitalism, corporate greed, the conflict of interests this inevitably breeds and the social unrest we have recently witnessed throughout the globe.

So history is over (again), yet human civilization continues to develop in unforeseen and surprising ways, especially not in the ways they at all thought they could bring about by coercion and force.

Revolutions can take on many forms, they can be passive or aggressive. But until there is a fundamental change in the US two-party political system, for which private business and all the interests of private business reign supreme, means that everything will 'change' so that everything remains the same.

While I'm conviced that anybody under the present circumstances who truly attempts to push for real change alone, risks his own skin. There's too much power behind the scenes.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Why on earth you would translate my assertion that Obama is a poor president into thinking I'd vote for Bachman or Palin or support the lunatic fringe of the TP is beyond me. To me that's Obama's best hope for getting re-elected. The other side may very well produce someone actually worse.

Do you really, truly, honestly think Obama is a good president?
Could anyone be? You call him the black bush yet the republicans hate him and oppose him down to the lives of his children. He must be doing something right. As far as the financial world , The fed and wall street extorted (mr executive order) Bush for trillions of dollars before the 08 election..and to convince the country and the world that they could THEY DID wreck the economy. Credit lines closed except to themselves etc.. Even so Obama has at least laid some ground work for reeling them in. (see current news "civil war on wall street") As for afghanistan and Iraq..There is no excuse to us. but the Bush loyal wahabis could make pulling out look very bad even if it could be done. So is Obama LBJ? No.. Will he be? probably not.. Without the "why do you hate American" and " don't you remember 911?" rhetoric under Bush, the republican opposition to everything would just be hot air. The media gives republican way unequal air time to oppose this president and then hails their victories...They obviously convince you easily.

""While I'm conviced that anybody under the present circumstances who truly attempts to push for real change alone, risks his own skin. There's too much power behind the scenes. ""

what he said

and this
http://www.mediaite.com/online/speaker-john-boehner-should-resign-for-his-unprecedented-insult-to-the-president/

and this
http://ampedstatus.org/full-blown-civil-war-erupts-on-wall-street-as-reality-finally-hits-the-financial-elite-they-start-turning-on-each-other/
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
""1. Yesterday, Obama effectively put Congress on notice that if Republicans are going to block job-creating progress, the White House is going to go over their heads and create those jobs anyway. The Atlantic reports:

Under Wednesday’s (Aug. 31) order, the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Transportation will each select up to three high-priority infrastructure projects that can be completed within the control and jurisdiction of the federal government. The effort is labeled as a “common-sense approach” to spurring job growth “in the near term.” In practical terms, that means speeding up the permitting and waiver processes for green-building or highway projects to get the government out of the way.

Okay, so there’s the spine. He’s ready to summarily dismiss the otherwise expected assistance of Congress in creating jobs, knowing full well that Republicans have no desire to help Obama get re-elected by helping to create jobs and turn the economy around. They’d much rather just keep piling on tax breaks for the rich and talking about how bad the economy is under Obama for everyone else.""

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/01/how-obama-emerged-from-aug-31-hullabaloo-looking-not-so-shabby-no-really/
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
redtreviso said:
Could anyone be? You call him the black bush yet the republicans hate him and oppose him down to the lives of his children. He must be doing something right.
You are not so thick that you don't understand the policy he pushes that is the basis of much of the hate of the right wing base, are you? It's called being black.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
ChrisE said:
You are not so thick that you don't understand the policy he pushes that is the basis of much of the hate of the right wing base, are you? It's called being black.
Of course.. He got bin laden.. If little boots had done that republicans would have tried to make him King for life. but----------------

If Hilary was president we would be hearing full out war on women..That comes equally as natural to Republicans as hating a black president.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
rhubroma said:
As extreme as it may sound, what's needed is a revolution. Because anything less than a revolution means collapsing into grotesque compromises, which explains the baffling inconsistencies between the actual deeds and the campaign compromises.

Just look at how the opposition denounced and branded him, as a revolutionary, as a god-forsaken socialist, when the changes he was asking for, by European standards on both the right and the left, were merely normal policies of civility. And it worked. Even some within his own party balked and caved in to the pressures of ideology and the plutocracy.

It seems to me that during the Cold War America was hell bent on "saving" civilization by tenaciously combating revolutionary marxism and socialism in any form, that in short it fought a revolution against revolution and won, partly on sheer quantities of capital. Now there has been, however, an over-zealousness in giving free reign to the winner's cause and in applying it to every facet of our lives. It is a form of extremism, market funadmanetalism, that has replaced that which was once combated, with equal tenacity and equal zeal. While this has pushed the country dangerously far to the right.

In the wake of the victory the most extreme ideologues and business elite, even a certain class of the country's intelligentsia, were convinced that history was over, that America's form of unfettered liberal, free-market capitalism was destined to conquer and win over the whole world. That the privatization of everything would allow the national governments themselves to become obsolete relics of the past, and that the corporations would thus replace them in guiding society and civilization on the path, which is its destiny, toward ever more marvelous forms of progress and well-being.

What such people didn't account for, though, was the amount of the world's population and even in much more rare cases the US' own, who don't feel that this prophecy will at all lead to the happy world they in many ways cynically encourage and promote (even by military means when necessary). This has also been made more clear given the excesses of financial capitalism, corporate greed, the conflict of interests this inevitably breeds and the social unrest we have recently witnessed throughout the globe.

So history is over (again), yet human civilization continues to develop in unforeseen and surprising ways, especially not in the ways they at all thought they could bring about by coercion and force.

Revolutions can take on many forms, they can be passive or aggressive. But until there is a fundamental change in the US two-party political system, for which private business and all the interests of private business reign supreme, means that everything will 'change' so that everything remains the same.

While I'm conviced that anybody under the present circumstances who truly attempts to push for real change alone, risks his own skin. There's too much power behind the scenes.
This "revolution" talk is where you go off the tracks.

In a democracy, there is no need for a revolution. The only thing that is requred is required for democracy to work is sanity, which is sorely lacking right about now. Remember the good thing about democracy is that you get what you deserve, and that is also the bad thing about democracy.

Besides that, the underclass is splintered as we have been saying. Different facets of the underclass think that different forces are causing their demise, which tends to make revolutions and little hard to manage, don't you think?

The revolution happened at the ballot box in 2008, and it would have been even more of a landslide across government if a minority with a muslim sounding name hadn't been running. The results of that revolution have been squandered away.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
redtreviso said:
Of course.. He got bin laden.. If little boots had done that republicans would have tried to make him King for life. but----------------

If Hilary was president we would be hearing full out war on women..That comes equally as natural to Republicans as hating a black president.
What is your point? You are so busy worrying about and getting ****ed off about what the republicans are doing or saying that you can't even look in the mirror at your own party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY