World Politics

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Gawd I wish Palin had declared today. It would have been so much ****ing fun.

That is true. Especially for some Americans, who could faithfully go on a crusade for their holy mother, and for some Europeans who could feed their feeling of cultural superiority from it.
But besides that, "fun" has nothing to do with politics. Atleast no politics worthy of a democratic society.

To quote Adorno:

Fun ist ein Stahlbad.
Die Vergnügungsindustrie verordnet es unablässig. Lachen wird in ihr zum Instrument des Betrugs am Glück.

Fun is a chalybeate bath. The pleasure industry ceaselessly prescribes it. In it (the industry not the bath) laughing becomes an instrument of the decection of happieness.
(I thought it would be arrogant to only post it in German, so I tanslated the quote. Far from perfect though I guess.)

 

[Amsterhammer]

OMG. And Biden's not mentally ill?

Gawd I wish Palin had declared today. It would have been so much ****ing fun.

Yes Scott, such a shame that the monied classes of SoCal are denied the "fun" that a Palin candidature would have provided..... The country is in the deepest imaginable sh!t and you're missing out on "fun". You and your ilk really are the neanderthals of our time.

I can't say that I've noticed anything about Biden that would lead me to believe that he's mentally ill, apart from the fact that he is supposedly a 'liberal' Democrat, which of itself is already enough to get your lot up in arms. No doubt, you will also fail to see the veracity of the cartoons I posted above.

There have been so many posts over the last week that I would have normally replied to but didn't have the time because my girlfriend is here from the US. Someone made the very valid point that there are no more 'liberal' Republocrats like there used to be, because US politics have lurched so far to the extreme right that the Demicans now occupy that ground. There is, in short, no left wing representation in the US. There is center right, far right, and the totally insane lunatic Hun right. So, I say all power to the extra-parliamentary opposition now being manifested by the Wall St. marchers. Our only vague, distant hope is for this movement to grow into a popular opposition that will eventually be able to launch the fundamental revolution on whose need Rhubroma and I totally agree.

Sadly, there really is no other way since the US political system is broken beyond any capacity for (peaceful) self-renewal.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes Scott, such a shame that the monied classes of SoCal are denied the "fun" that a Palin candidature would have provided..... The country is in the deepest imaginable sh!t and you're missing out on "fun". You and your ilk really are the neanderthals of our time.

I can't say that I've noticed anything about Biden that would lead me to believe that he's mentally ill, apart from the fact that he is supposedly a 'liberal' Democrat, which of itself is already enough to get your lot up in arms. No doubt, you will also fail to see the veracity of the cartoons I posted above.

There have been so many posts over the last week that I would have normally replied to but didn't have the time because my girlfriend is here from the US. Someone made the very valid point that there are no more 'liberal' Republocrats like there used to be, because US politics have lurched so far to the extreme right that the Demicans now occupy that ground. There is, in short, no left wing representation in the US. There is center right, far right, and the totally insane lunatic Hun right. So, I say all power to the extra-parliamentary opposition now being manifested by the Wall St. marchers. Our only vague, distant hope is for this movement to grow into a popular opposition that will eventually be able to launch the fundamental revolution on whose need Rhubroma and I totally agree.

Sadly, there really is no other way since the US political system is broken beyond any capacity for (peaceful) self-renewal.

Palin is more or less as mental as Biden. You were not posting back then but I have maintained all along Palin would not run.

The fun for me would have been watching the humorless left (you) go through your 35 stages of melt-down.

As for your much hoped for revolution... be very careful what you wish for. Once underway the revolutionaries will not discriminate between someone like you and someone like me.

BTW, who sounds more mental... me wanting a vibrant economy, or you wanting a revolution?

 

[Anonymous]

I have absolute faith that this is exactly how you see things.

 

[Anonymous]

Lookey here... Perhaps we are closer to a revolution than previously thought.

Email: 'Time to kill the wealthy'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65307.html


“It’s time to tax the millionaires!” reads the email, according to WTEN in Albany. “If you don’t, I’m going to pay a visit with my carbine to one of those tech companies you are so proud of and shoot every spoiled Ivy League [expletive] I can find.”


Music to the ears of at least a few on this board I suppose.

 

[Cobblestones]

Yes Scott, such a shame that the monied classes of SoCal are denied the "fun" that a Palin candidature would have provided..... The country is in the deepest imaginable sh!t and you're missing out on "fun". You and your ilk really are the neanderthals of our time.

But there will be fun to have with Palin. Rumor has it that when Romney wins the primary, Palin might run as independent. Her statement yesterday was that she will not seek the GOP nomination. It doesn't exclude that she'll run for president as an independent.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Lookey here... Perhaps we are closer to a revolution than previously thought.

Email: 'Time to kill the wealthy'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65307.html


“It’s time to tax the millionaires!” reads the email, according to WTEN in Albany. “If you don’t, I’m going to pay a visit with my carbine to one of those tech companies you are so proud of and shoot every spoiled Ivy League [expletive] I can find.”


Music to the ears of at least a few on this board I suppose.

I guess these guys really do want some type of riot or demonstration.

Hey I have not had a chance lately but wanted to make this statement for a while. President Obama is a Socialist! Man that is so revolutionary to say! I feel liberated now.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

But there will be fun to have with Palin. Rumor has it that when Romney wins the primary, Palin might run as independent. Her statement yesterday was that she will not seek the GOP nomination. It doesn't exclude that she'll run for president as an independent.

I hope you are correct. I can't wait to cast my vote for Her!

 

[fatandfast]

who can win here? Should the Wall Streeters agree to stop making money? Or should they march on and agree instead to keep raking it in and fully embrace somebody taking it directly or indirectly for redistribution? The current protesters if allowed to get even a handful of the hundreds of demands, affordable housing, healthcare and jobs,equal pay(?whatever that means?) who will pay for either scenario?
I have come to realize that deficit spending has always been part of my life. I grew up in a boom town where the schools, roads,sewer,water and parks,ect all were installed in advance of the population and done w bond money. Like my parents I have financed all my real estate and after my early 20's all my cars, motorcycles,bicycles, and other expensive purchases have been made with other than a lump sum payment.
Lots of young protesters did not do any worst case scenario thinking about what would happen if they took on 100,000+ in debt before entering the work force. Well it's worst case and lots of people are sleeping in parks and yelling about the stinky state of things. Taking temp cash from the people who currently have it is short sighted and is not a long term solution for things like income, healthcare and education. If you are 25 w a masters and think that there is anything that can be given to you at 25 that will get you rolling or sustain you until 75 or 80, and then into your retirement you are high, really, really high.
The world has changed so rapidly that nobody could foresee it globally as things have gone from dream to reality. Not so many years ago, an ipod,computer, expensive clothes and activities were all things to be saved for. The last 25 years ,America has erased that from our collective mind. We get everything on demand. In many places that I have lived in the last 10 years I sit side by side at bars, cafes,bike shops, clothing stores and car dealers,ect, and on and on with people that are students and young people that have a mindset that everything is automatic, hand it to me. When I was in school I would have never thought of buying a new car or an 6000 dollar bicycle. If protesters have looked at things pragmatically and see that power is not in Washington but instead is really Wall St and think they can skip the practices of elected government everybody is in for even more disappointed than they currently feel. Banking is changed w laws,not Halloween masks and sleeping bags, may get things started but political power will make the change.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

But there will be fun to have with Palin. Rumor has it that when Romney wins the primary, Palin might run as independent. Her statement yesterday was that she will not seek the GOP nomination. It doesn't exclude that she'll run for president as an independent.

Which would probably win Obama the election. Is that really a realistic scenario?

 

[redtreviso]

""The size of the world stock market was estimated at about $36.6 trillion at the start of October 2008.[1] The total world derivatives market has been estimated at about $791 trillion face or nominal value,[2] 11 times the size of the entire world economy""

 

[redtreviso]

who can win here? Should the Wall Streeters agree to stop making money? Or should they march on and agree instead to keep raking it in and fully embrace somebody taking it directly or indirectly for redistribution?

stealing money is more like it.. redistribution??????????????????????
are you fkidding???? Go listen to rush and have a nice day

 

[redtreviso]

who can win here? Should the Wall Streeters agree to stop making money? Or should they march on and agree instead to keep raking it in and fully embrace somebody taking it directly or indirectly for redistribution? The current protesters if allowed to get even a handful of the hundreds of demands, affordable housing, healthcare and jobs,equal pay(?whatever that means?) who will pay for either scenario?
I have come to realize that deficit spending has always been part of my life. I grew up in a boom town where the schools, roads,sewer,water and parks,ect all were installed in advance of the population and done w bond money. Like my parents I have financed all my real estate and after my early 20's all my cars, motorcycles,bicycles, and other expensive purchases have been made with other than a lump sum payment.
Lots of young protesters did not do any worst case scenario thinking about what would happen if they took on 100,000+ in debt before entering the work force. Well it's worst case and lots of people are sleeping in parks and yelling about the stinky state of things. Taking temp cash from the people who currently have it is short sighted and is not a long term solution for things like income, healthcare and education. If you are 25 w a masters and think that there is anything that can be given to you at 25 that will get you rolling or sustain you until 75 or 80, and then into your retirement you are high, really, really high.
The world has changed so rapidly that nobody could foresee it globally as things have gone from dream to reality. Not so many years ago, an ipod,computer, expensive clothes and activities were all things to be saved for. The last 25 years ,America has erased that from our collective mind. We get everything on demand. In many places that I have lived in the last 10 years I sit side by side at bars, cafes,bike shops, clothing stores and car dealers,ect, and on and on with people that are students and young people that have a mindset that everything is automatic, hand it to me. When I was in school I would have never thought of buying a new car or an 6000 dollar bicycle. If protesters have looked at things pragmatically and see that power is not in Washington but instead is really Wall St and think they can skip the practices of elected government everybody is in for even more disappointed than they currently feel. Banking is changed w laws,not Halloween masks and sleeping bags, may get things started but political power will make the change.

""Should this carnival get rowdy, these hippies, punks, eco loonies, union goons and other assorted misfits will only get themselves hurt and, at most, a few of my foot soldiers annoyed. I’ve been talking to you real friendly, ****heads, but in spite of my bonhomie and $10,000 Fioravanti suit, I can be nastier than Quentin Tarrantino’s worst nightmare. I’ve brought entire countries to their knees, so I won’t hesitate to squash a few more tattooed and nose ringed cockroaches. Cornell West or Michael Moore groupies ain’t ish. (I picked up that lingo from my “rebellious” son.) Now, would you like a drink? I’ll buy the first round.""

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/05/letter-from-a-banker/

 

[Cobblestones]

Which would probably win Obama the election. Is that really a realistic scenario?

Describing Palin with one word, 'vindictive' comes to mind. Yes, if Romney 'steals' the nomination from the teaparty, I could see Palin doing precisely this. Running against Romney and handing the presidency to Obama.

 

[fatandfast]

stealing money is more like it.. redistribution??????????????????????
are you fkidding???? Go listen to rush and have a nice day

top down my brother top down. You can substitute the word stealing rather than earning as much as you want but for now the system and the activities are legal. While I share your disgust at the obscene salaries and bonuses given to a very few greedy butplugs. The rebellion while well intended will have very little immediate effect on financial restructuring today and for sure nobody that can change things in the banking system will do anything before the elections.
I hope the protesters are able to have a long term ramp up attitude toward change. Keep in mind that was the presidents slogan also and now a few years in we have had lots of change.few would agree it's for the best. A protester that was interviewed by an NYC reporter said he and his fellow protesters(don't think he was talking about a big group, because he said they all traveled by bus from Philly) He said they were not leaving until they got some accountability. In his eyes that was an exec from a Wall St firm being taken out in handcuffs for financial misdeeds. I will probably be seeing that guys around downtown.
PS Rush, Savage, Hannity are all nazi pigs.Patuli oil vs Politics who will win round 1?.

 

[Anonymous]

But there will be fun to have with Palin. Rumor has it that when Romney wins the primary, Palin might run as independent. Her statement yesterday was that she will not seek the GOP nomination. It doesn't exclude that she'll run for president as an independent.

There is no chance of this happening.

 

[Anonymous]

Describing Palin with one word, 'vindictive' comes to mind. Yes, if Romney 'steals' the nomination from the teaparty, I could see Palin doing precisely this. Running against Romney and handing the presidency to Obama.

Vindictive? How so?

Considering the vilification from the sexist left I'd say she done nothing more than (perhaps) defend herself... and she's done a rather poor job of that.

Palin has no specific axe to grind against Romney. If he gets the nomination he'll get her endorsement.

Palin is monumentally more anti-Obama than she is anti-Romney.

I'm just curious what Rubio's going to do.

 

[redtreviso]

""Nieman Watchdog has a very good piece by John Hanrahan about press coverage of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. Coverage was initially dismissive and minimal — and mea culpa, I wasn’t paying attention myself. But it’s becoming clear that there’s something important happening: finally, after three years in which Very Serious People refused to hold the financial industry accountable, there’s a real grass-roots uprising against the Masters of the Universe.

There will, of course, be the usual attempts to dismiss the whole thing based on trivialities. Look at the oddly dressed people acting out! So? Is it better when exquisitely tailored bankers whose gambles brought the world economy to its knees — and who were bailed out by taxpayers — whine that President Obama is saying slightly mean things about them?

Or, why don’t they try to work within the system? Well, how’s that been going for those who did indeed try? When palace intrigue undermined the likes of Elizabeth Warren even within the Obama administration, and Republicans have thrown their full backing behind the malefactors of great wealth, why shouldn’t protesters go outside the usual channels?

Finally, why not defer to people who know what needs to be done? Regular readers know the answer: the VSPs have been consistently, awesomely wrong, both before the financial crisis and after. Nothing in the recent record of policy suggests that the wise men of finance deserve any credence at all.""

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/unsavvy-people/

 

[VeloCity]

Lookey here... Perhaps we are closer to a revolution than previously thought.

Email: 'Time to kill the wealthy'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65307.html


“It’s time to tax the millionaires!” reads the email, according to WTEN in Albany. “If you don’t, I’m going to pay a visit with my carbine to one of those tech companies you are so proud of and shoot every spoiled Ivy League [expletive] I can find.”


Music to the ears of at least a few on this board I suppose.

Oh come on, seriously now, do you want to get into a comparison with threats made by individual Tea Baggers over the years??? And "Tea Party"? Doesn't get much more symbolically revolutionary than that. Course, conservatives are also the folks who thought a secessionist might make a good president.

But setting all that aside, for decades and decades liberals have been arguing that the US needs the sort of social infrastructure - social safety nets, stricter banking and financial regulations, more stringent brakes and checks on unfettered capitalism, etc - that countries like Canada have for exactly the reasons we're seeing today: to prevent market implosions (or at least to mitigate their impacts, as the stringent banking regulations did for Canada), and to soften the landing for people who are impacted when things go bad.

We in the US have chosen to have none of these things, gambling instead that things won't ever go bad. Well, now they've gone bad, and as a result we end up with groups like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St that are composed of scared and desperate people who turn that fear and desperation into anger - people who are mad as hell but don't really know what exactly it is that they are mad as hell about but feel the need to lash out.

Countries like Canada and Sweden aren't perfect, obviously, but where they've been successful is in finding an effective balance between capitalism/corporatism and the common good - capitalism is still the driving force of their economy, but it's forced to operate within narrower confines, ie the ceiling isn't as high and the floor isn't as low as it is in the US (it's tougher to get super-rich in Canada or Sweden than it is in the US, but it's also much tougher to become destitute or sick as well), with revenues from higher tax rates on wealthier individuals and corporations being used to fund programs and policies - economic, social, environmental, etc - that benefit society as a whole. Little wonder that people in countries that put (slightly) more emphasis on the collective good and (slightly) less on individual wealth aren't as scared or desperate or feel as powerless or as alienated as Americans are. We should learn from them.

No society where a small proportion of the population controls most of the wealth and where the gap between rich and poor widens excessively has ever survived for very long. Why conservatives think the US is going to be the exception is beyond me. We're not going to be.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh come on, seriously now, do you want to get into a comparison with threats made by individual Tea Baggers over the years??? And "Tea Party"? Doesn't get much more symbolically revolutionary than that. Course, conservatives are also the folks who thought a secessionist might make a good president.

But setting all that aside, for decades and decades liberals have been arguing that the US needs the sort of social infrastructure - social safety nets, stricter banking and financial regulations, more stringent brakes and checks on unfettered capitalism, etc - that countries like Canada have for exactly the reasons we're seeing today: to prevent market implosions (or at least to mitigate their impacts, as the stringent banking regulations did for Canada), and to soften the landing for people who are impacted when things go bad.

We in the US have chosen to have none of these things, gambling instead that things won't ever go bad. Well, now they've gone bad, and as a result we end up with groups like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St that are composed of scared and desperate people who turn that fear and desperation into anger - people who are mad as hell but don't really know what exactly it is that they are mad as hell about.

Countries like Canada and Sweden aren't perfect, obviously, but where they've been successful is in finding an effective balance between capitalism/corporatism and the common good - capitalism is still the driving force of their economy, but it's forced to operate within narrower confines, ie the ceiling isn't as high and the floor isn't as low as it is in the US (it's tougher to get super-rich in Canada or Sweden than it is in the US, but it's also much tougher to become destitute or sick as well). People in countries that put (slightly) more emphasis on the collective and (slightly) less on the individual aren't as scared or desperate or feel as powerless or as alienated as Americans do. We should learn from them.

No society where a small proportion of the population controls most of the wealth and where the gap between rich and poor widens excessively has ever survived for very long. Why conservatives think the US is going to be the exception is beyond me. We're not going to be.

Oh come on, seriously now, do you want to get into a comparison with threats made by individual Tea Baggers over the years???

Sure.

And "Tea Party"? Doesn't get much more symbolically revolutionary than that.

Adhering to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution is "symbollically revolutionary"? You wrote;

I'd go even farther and agree with Fareed Zakaria and Juan Linz: the US needs to abandon the presidential system altogether and adopt a parliamentary system.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....iref=allsearch

Considering you would wipe your *** with the constitution, the Tea Party probably seems revolutionary to you.

But setting all that aside, for decades and decades liberals have been arguing that the US needs the sort of social infrastructure - social safety nets,

Yes. Where does it stop? Are you for socialized housing too?

unfettered capitalism

I see this bandied about frequently nowadays. Other than illegal activity (drug trade, for example) can you show me where the unfettered capitalism is in this country?

We in the US have chosen to have none of these things, gambling instead that things won't ever go bad.

You write this as if this economy has never been in the toilet before. Guess what? We will recover. And the economy will be in the toilet again sometime in the future.

Countries like Canada and Sweden aren't perfect, obviously, but where they've been successful is in finding an effective balance between capitalism/corporatism and the common good - capitalism is still the driving force of their economy,

Countries with relatively small populations and huge amounts of natural resources can get away with lots of things that won't work here. So what?

No society where a small proportion of the population controls most of the wealth and where the gap between rich and poor widens excessively has ever survived for very long.

By this if you mean to say the corrupt should not be allowed to profit then I'm with you. But I'm confident that's not what you are talking about.

 

[Cobblestones]

I'm just curious what Rubio's going to do.

Be curious no more. As I have predicted in the thread, Rubio won't be anybody's VP.

ETA: and Palin will run as independent if Romney gets the nomination. She'll go all mavericky and rogue on the GOP, you betcha.

 

[Anonymous]

Be curious no more. As I have predicted in the thread, Rubio won't be anybody's VP.

ETA: and Palin will run as independent if Romney gets the nomination. She'll go all mavericky and rogue on the GOP, you betcha.

Pre-emptive statement, but he's pretty close to Romney. If Romney gets the nomination and asks Rubio, I think he'll have a very hard time saying "no".

ETA: and Palin will run as independent if Romney gets the nomination. She'll go all mavericky and rogue on the GOP, you betcha.

Exactly zero chance of this. She's not running no matter who gets the nod.

 

[VeloCity]

Adhering to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution is "symbollically revolutionary"?

No, purposely naming your movement after an event that in the American mythos is closely associated with the beginning of the American Revolution is, I would say, very much symbolically revolutionary.

But don't take my word for it:

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/03/fort_lauderdale_tea_party_kilcullen.php

"Revolution or die". Nice slogan.

Considering you would wipe your *** with the constitution, the Tea Party probably seems revolutionary to you.

Call me unpatriotic, but I think it's insane and really, really, really stupid to be so blindly and rigidly affixed to a document that was written by a handful of people nearly 300 years ago. The US Supreme Court deciding cases in 2011 based on their interpretation of what exactly the Founding Fathers meant or would've wanted is beyond absurd.

Times change. Let's change with them.

To that end, yes, absolutely, we should dump an outdated and outmoded presidential system that may have worked in the past but has become ossified to the point of not only being rendered essentially nonfunctional but almost total irrelevant in the modern world.

Yes. Where does it stop? Are you for socialized housing too?

Ah the slippery slope. Isn't this the same argument conservatives use for, well, everything? Gun control, gay marriage - oh my, where does it all stop? Odd, Canada, Sweden, Norway, France - they've had no problem deciding where to stop. Are you suggesting that Americans aren't bright enough to figure it out?

Also, "socialized housing"?? I'm starting to get the sense that you really have no idea what we're arguing for or how the countries that we hold up as models - Canada, for eg - are actually structured or function.

I see this bandied about frequently nowadays. Other than illegal activity (drug trade, for example) can you show me where the unfettered capitalism is in this country?

"Unfettered: to free from restraint; to liberate". Isn't that exactly the conservative goal? So yeah, I used it in the context of mocking the conservative view of capitalism, which was maybe a bit immature.

You write this as if this economy has never been in the toilet before. Guess what? We will recover. And the economy will be in the toilet again sometime in the future.

But the world is a much, much different place and it's evolving quickly, and we're not evolving with it. We may recover, but "recover" is a relative term, and more likely we'll slowly start sliding backward because we're so resistant to institutional change and so culturally and politically (both Dems and Repubs) inflexible.

Actually, that's already starting to happen - we're already a decade or more behind Europe in the green energy/economy sector and in the transformation to alternative energies, probably the single most important sector of the future global economy.

Countries with relatively small populations and huge amounts of natural resources can get away with lots of things that won't work here. So what?

Ah that old canard. BS, that's just a conservative excuse.

By this if you mean to say the corrupt should not be allowed to profit then I'm with you. But I'm confident that's not what you are talking about.

I thought it was pretty clear - regardless of what you or I believe or want, no society will exist for very long with the kind of growing gap between the very small minority of rich and the vast majority who become poorer as we're seeing happening in the US. Such societies always end in social upheaval and/or radical transformation of one sort or another. Question is, do we exert a bit of control over that transformation by instituting regulatory and social measures to act as safety valves, or do we just cross our fingers and close our eyes to the possibility and hope it doesn't come to pass? The rest of the world isn't taking any chances and choosing the former route. Absolutely no reason we couldn't as well.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Maple Leaf

I am moving to Canada.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Pre-emptive statement, but he's pretty close to Romney. If Romney gets the nomination and asks Rubio, I think he'll have a very hard time saying "no".



Exactly zero chance of this. She's not running no matter who gets the nod.

I hope you're wrong.....I plan to vote for her!

I just sent her a check for $1.98. She needs campaign funds.