Obama: Same old shit

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 30, 2009, 9:51 pm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct20 ... -o30.shtml

Not the best of sites, but all these things are easily verifiable on any number of worldwide papers and on the wires.

In a ceremony Wednesday, US President Barack Obama signed legislation authorizing the largest ever military budget, a gargantuan $680 billion for the Pentagon, including $130 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Thursday, he signed a spending bill funneling another $44 billion into the Department of Homeland Security, to strengthen the apparatus of state repression within the United States.

The back-to-back bill signings are a clear demonstration that Obama is extending and intensifying the program of militarism and attacks on democratic rights for which the Bush administration was deservedly hated, in the United States and worldwide.

Obama: The prettified version of Bush. 99.9% rhetoric and fuck all to show for nearly a year in Office. Yeah, a military budget that's already virtually as big as the rest of the planet combined wasn't big enough.

One component of the Pentagon authorization bill is the Military Commissions Act of 2009, which retains the military tribunals established by the Bush administration with a few cosmetic changes, such as prohibiting the use of prisoner testimony derived from torture. Administration lobbyists successfully watered down more restrictive provisions adopted in the House version of the bill earlier this month.

A Department of Justice spokesman told Time magazine that the military commissions would be a “viable option” for certain Guantanamo prisoners. White House officials have already made clear that they will not meet the January 20, 2010 deadline for emptying Guantanamo, set by Obama amid much fanfare when he took office.

Obama’s cynical attitude toward democratic rights was on display after the signing ceremony for the Pentagon bill. He hailed the portion of the bill that extends federal hate crimes laws to include violence against gays and lesbians, meeting with the parents of Matthew Shepard, the young gay man beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998.

The next day, the Obama administration moved quickly to enforce the prohibition on the release of military torture photos. Solicitor General Elena Kagan sent a letter Thursday to the Supreme Court, apprising it of the legislation and declaring that she would file a supplemental brief on its effect on the ongoing ACLU lawsuit before the Court’s conference November 6.

And on top of this, he's even trying to overturn the illegality of torture for Bagram again. Jesus fucking christ.

Edit: You can ignore the slant of the article and concentrate merely on the actual substance of what actions are factually being taken, and if you don't believe they are true go google it yourself, rather than turn this into a "this website is socialist" (We already know that, it's in the name)

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » October 31, 2009, 2:37 pm

Sorry Nick, but you display the same ignorance as most of the rest of the world in your diatribe, with little appreciation of the realities of our world. Its like an old Billy Connelly bit.

The last 30 seconds or so of the following clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXit0FTxa1U

Obama's made some steps on his agenda, while at the same time dealing with massive messes inherited from Bush and beyond. Iraq is calming down a bit but is still a massive drain on the US military: I won't argue that the Americans never should have gone there in the first place because its too late for that discussion. Afghanistan is still a bloody mess and getting worse, in part because of the half assed way Bush and the rest of NATO have handled it, again leading to a massive drain on the US military. Obama didn't invent either of these conflicts and has made all the indications of wanting to be extricated from them but its not like hitting an on/off switch.

Couple that to the fact that the number one issue on the US bas been that it is still ass deep in the "credit crunch" recession (largely of US making but not entirely and not just the fault of the last administration either), which means the last thing the US gov't wants to do is start attacking another manufacturing sector. We can argue about the effects of diverting the huge military budget into other areas but the short term would mean massive layoffs and more unemployment for both soldiers and defense industry suppliers.

I'm not an American or even a fan of Obama (IMO he's another goddamned lawyer in politics) but I am enough a realist to admit one doesn't solve issues on this scale overnight, or usually even in 9 months. Steering countries and policies like this takes years to fix unless the party in power wants to pull a Stalin and execute/starve millions to death.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 31, 2009, 2:58 pm

I don't see where I said anywhere in my post that messes Obama inherited were easily solved, can you help me on that one?

That was a nicely made post, nicely written and mostly polite, it's still largely irrelevant though, since the fact remains that all the evidence suggests quite straightforwardly that Obama, in terms of foreign policy, is effectively identical to second term Bush except with a friendly and polished overtone.

I could give further examples, such as US support for the Gas reserves in Gaza currently attempting to be stolen by Israel, the refusal to acknowledge the unwavering support of the west of Israel in general (Which Obama is happily continuing with), the fourth fleet nonsense, the attempts to refuse habeus corpus rights to "enemy combatants" (whatever thats meant to mean) etc etc etc.

I'm enough of a realist to see that this isn't a surprise, and enough of a realist to understand that the US is hardly going to cede it's position as the worlds superpower, then again, I'm not going to sit and legitimise it as the actions of a benevolent and kind nation, or try polishing a turd, which is what you seem to be trying to do in that last post.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 31, 2009, 4:43 pm

There are some valid points here. Obama's national security policy is probably the aspect of his presidency that ought to have progressives most disappointed. That said, this presentation is overstating the case pretty substantially. For instance:

Nick's website wrote:a few cosmetic changes, such as prohibiting the use of prisoner testimony derived from torture

Are you fucking kidding me? Prohibiting torture-coerced testimony is a "cosmetic change?"

Military commissions in and of themselves are not inherently bad, depending on how they are set up. Obama's structure is substantially better than Bush's, although it retains several problems. For instance, the administration has refused to rule out charging "material support for terrorism" in military commissions, a loophole which leaves open the potential to try individuals in commissions who rightfully should be charged in civilian courts. But it's the details of implementation that are problematic, not the mere existence of a framework. Your source apparently thinks that the mere existence of military commissions is terrible and therefore sees no need to look at the details to see if the ones proposed are actually terrible or not. Which is unfortunate, because the actual proposal IS troublesome, and instead of focusing in on those problems, the source makes a wingnut argument which is impossible to take seriously.

To preemptively defend the notion that military commissions are worthwhile in a limited fashion: Trying war crimes before military commissions is perfectly valid. Trying civilian crimes before military commissions is not. The key is to come up with strong rules that ensure that only those who have committed REAL war crimes are tried before military commissions. That structure was nonexistent in the Bush administration, and it's severely lacking in the Obama administration.

If you're interesting in serious, cogent criticism of Obama's national security moves, as opposed to nutcase ranting, check this out:

http://acslaw.org/node/14473

Also, it's nice to see that your source seems to think that Obama signing what is by far the most important positive piece of legislation for the LGBT community ever to become law in the United States is somehow a piece of evidence for his lack of respect for democratic rights. While they're at it, maybe they could cite his administration's work toward brokering new elections in Afghanistan and Honduras as evidence of his totalitarianism.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 31, 2009, 7:28 pm

As long as Oprah says Obama is OK, you'll get nowhere with the people on this board.

Next election there will be a One eyed, fat, Native American midget that runs for the presidency and these people will be all over him. He's different! Must be better! The believers will all be Tomahawking their arms and putting warpaint on so they have a feeling of belonging to the new campaign.

The United States will always be military first. It was a waste putting Obama into office when McCain had so much more experience with military affairs. Here's how it works. No matter who gets elected president and what their stated position is toward weakening America, they get their real briefing on International Affairs after taking office, and after understanding the full gravity of the situation, must change and side with a strong U.S.

As a sports fan, do you want to keep looking at crusty old Stealth Bombers flying over sports stadiums during the National Anthem? No! We want new bad ass planes flying over stadiums for both entertainment and the protection of the Western World.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 31, 2009, 11:11 pm

What about his promised "era new transparency" coupled with Cheney-esque secret meetings with pharma and insurance execs. Who coincidentally pumped millions into DNC coffers?

Coupled with his refusal on the same grounds Bush used to refuse to release attendee lists or agendas?

What you have is the same old shit in a shiny new package.

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » November 2, 2009, 2:30 am

Actually we should have drones flying over stadiums now. But they're no where near as sexy as a stealth bomber. Every time I watch the 2004 Rose Bowl I think that shit is badass. And looking at it or the SR-71 from the 80s, I'm like "fuck my liberalism!"

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » November 2, 2009, 3:52 am

Phrase of the day - "crusty old Stealth Bombers"

lol.

Obama rules. Winnow sucks. Nick sucks.

I can already hear the chants... and I know I will be screaming it too...

4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 2, 2009, 5:46 pm

What a terribly faggoty post from Xyun, quel surprise.

Sueven, as I made pretty clear, I wasn't using that site as some high example of the situation, I was merely using it as a basic link to some undeniably factual states of affairs. I'm not in the usual mind to read the "socialist news" - I'm not quite sure how much more clearly I could have made that point.

Still, I'll check out that site, whilst inwardly lamenting what a simple minded chode Xyun is when it comes to pointing out basic reality. For an ex-Iranian so called enlightened, he certainly has a fucking narrow view of the current affairs.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 2, 2009, 8:01 pm

Phrase of the day - "whilst inwardly lamenting what a simple minded chode"

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 2, 2009, 8:23 pm

Oh, I forgot to mention how uninformed he was due to being a faggoty ignorant of the facts because its not fashionable fanboy.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 3, 2009, 12:15 am

Well, the facts are right to an extent. It's a fact that military commissions exist under Obama, for instance. But I don't think that's a bad thing. The more relevant fact is that military commissions exist in a form that is still unacceptable, even after reform. Neither you nor your source explained that. That's why I'm criticizing your source-- because it doesn't give ample information to make actual criticisms. I'm agreeing with the basic thrust of your argument-- that Obama's national security policy is bad. You just don't get that from what you posted.

Obama is "the same old shit" in many ways relative to Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc. He is also WAY FUCKING BETTER than George W. Bush, regardless of your politics. Obama may be a "typical politician," but anyone who thinks that Bush was "just" a "typical politician" has no fucking clue what they're talking about.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 3, 2009, 3:00 pm

Obama just has a different group pulling his strings.

Nothing effective is being done to remedy the root causes of recession round 1, lots of money pouring in from the financial sector lobbyists. The recovery we're experiencing right now is at least in part due to tarp funds being invested in the same derivative crap that contributed to the first implosion.

Healthcare "reform" isn't going to happen in a meaningful way.

Those two items alone should be pretty high on the agenda I'd think. Where's the outrage from the liberal media?

Unless they're totally incompetent the RNC will once more have congress when recession round two hits, as nothing's being done to stop it.

The military commissions, etc.. are an area I think he's done well in. In Iraq and Afghanistan taking a slow careful approach is a better idea than jumping in with both feet and straightening it out later.

Bush did what he could get away with, with the legislative branch's collusion. As will Obama. The Bush era expansions of executive power haven't been rolled back you'll note. Obama isn't as bad as Bush via his actions, I wouldn't even make a comparison. His inaction shows him to be lapping from the same trough.

Palin\Huckabee 2012? /shudder.

miir · Post by **miir** » November 3, 2009, 4:15 pm

Anyone who was expecting a substantial swing to the left obviously had unrealistic expectations.
American politics in general are so fucking far to the right that even a moderate like Obama is called a 'radical'.

I figure he's doing about as well as he can considering the current volatile political climate in the US.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 3, 2009, 8:55 pm

Aab: I think you're right, that if recession round 2 hits then the Democrats will be fucked in an electoral sense. I don't necessarily share your idea that such an outcome is preordained (for instance, I think that the assertion that the "root cause" of the recession was "lots of money pouring in from financial sector lobbyists" is kind of silly), but we'll see.

But I would disagree with your argument that Bush-era expansions of executive authority haven't been rolled back. They haven't been rolled all the way back, to be sure, but some substantial aspects have. For instance, Obama has implemented a policy for the assertion of the state secrets privilege that is substantially more restricted than what was in place under Bush. Also for instance, Obama has changed litigation tactics in asserting executive privilege in a very critical way. The Bush Justice Department would typically argue that whatever bit of executive authority they wanted was authorized by Congress in some statute or another, and, even if it wasn't, Bush had inherent constitutional authority to do whatever it was that he wanted to do. Obama has generally continued arguing for the same authority, but his Justice Department typically only argues for that authority on a statutory basis, but does not argue that he possesses inherent constitutional authority for those actions. This is a fairly negligible difference from a "do we like what he's doing" perspective, but is an absolutely CRITICAL difference from a separation of powers perspective.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » November 3, 2009, 9:15 pm

As I've said before, I believe that we have a fundamentally flawed (it represents the elite, not the average man) and inherently corrupt (witness lobbying and campaign fund raising) system of governance. It's designed to preserve the status quo, and to make implementing significant changes so difficult as to be virtually impossible absent some great external force driving an issue (financial collapse, being attacked militarily, broad civil unrest, stunning acts of terrorism etc.). We're witnessing this in action now. Anyone that thought that the election of Obama would result in sweeping, drastic changes was delusional. The best that we can hope for, barring a nice revolution, are small incremental shifts. Obama has done, or at least tried to do this by and large. The power of his administration is balanced by the other two branches of government, most notably a congress that is cowed into timidity by its addiction to campaign contributions from a nearly endless list of special interests. Obama is not a monarch and he cannot rule by fiat. I don't think any reasonable person would claim that his track record is perfect, and I think virtually any interest group can point to a list of things that they would say have not been aggressively pursued to their satisfaction. Operating under the constraints of our system, however, I don't think he's doing an awful job, even though what he's done is light years away from what I'd like to see happening. As long as we are constrained by a system such as ours, one must separate what's possible from what's ideal.

EDIT: Fixed a couple of typos and poor edits that I missed earlier because I'm a lazy proofreader and a sloppy editor. Nothing substantial was changed from my original post.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 3, 2009, 9:57 pm

Xatrei: I think you're dead on about the structural analysis. If you're interested in reading about structural impediments to governance from a legal perspective, I would really recommend looking up Sanford Levinson's work, especially 'Our Undemocratic Constitution."

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » November 4, 2009, 1:20 am

Sueven wrote:Xatrei: I think you're dead on about the structural analysis. If you're interested in reading about structural impediments to governance from a legal perspective, I would really recommend looking up Sanford Levinson's work, especially 'Our Undemocratic Constitution."

When I read that name, I thought it looked familiar so I looked him up. I've read some of his work regarding 2nd amendment issues. I'll take a closer look at his other work, and specifically the book you mention (just ordered it on Amazon, based on your recommendation and its reviews). Thanks!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 4, 2009, 4:44 am

I'll make sure Sueven and Xatrei share the same jail cell so they have plenty of time to discuss their viewpoints after I have them picked up for treason once the New World Order Kicks in!

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 4, 2009, 10:54 am

Sueven wrote:I think that the assertion that the "root cause" of the recession was "lots of money pouring in from financial sector lobbyists" is kind of silly)

I didn't write that well, it was meant to be two separate, related points. The causes of the recession aren't being addressed, and if they aren't a repeat is nearly assured, since people are still people. Deregulation, Reganomics, etc.. assumed integrity and corporate responsibility, neither of which are native to human nature.

Prior to the election I didn't expect monumental changes, or any significant change at all really. As X said, our system is designed to repress that.

I did expect him to put a little more effort into it. He's a great speaker, and if he wanted to could use the pulpit he's been given to drive change. It will be very interesting to see what he does as a lame duck, his true colors will show at that point. My far-far right pentecostal co-worker expects him to become a radical socialist.

miir · Post by **miir** » November 4, 2009, 11:45 am

I just don't get that 'radical socialist' angle that the right-wing blowhards are pushing.
He's anything but radical and he's an embarrasment to any real socialist.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 4, 2009, 11:18 pm

As Miir said, anyone who thinks Obama is ever, even vaguely in the same solar system of socialism, is a total and utter fucking nutjob and should be treated as such.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 4, 2009, 11:23 pm

Aab,

Well then we largely agree about the causes of the recession.

But I think that the administration is doing more in the financial reform area than you're giving it credit for.

Obama has used the leverage that it gained by financially supporting failing sectors of the economy-- especially banks and automakers-- to force reform within those sectors. Here is an article profiling administration efforts to force reform in the bailed-out car companies. Obviously, this is not structural reform, but it's certainly the case that failed management on behalf of banks and automakers played a significant role in the collapse, and improving the functioning of these industries is important.

Enacting true structural reform will come through work with Congress, and that process is ongoing. Here is an Obama speech giving the outlines of his preferred policy. Here is an update on where Congress is at in terms of legislation. Financial regulatory reform legislation is moving forward; it will almost certainly be the next legislative priority after healthcare reform. If you're curious about the specifics, there's lots of ink on it out there.

There is plenty of debate to be had about whether the steps that Obama is taking to try to prevent a recurrence of old economic problems are the right steps or not, or whether they'll be effective. But it's absolutely the case that he is doing something. I feel like we're all so used to Bush's style-- grandiose, sweeping initiatives aimed very broadly and generally-- that Obama's delegated, detail-oriented style of policymaking makes his actual actions easy to overlook.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 14, 2009, 9:19 am

Funny old video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

Obama promising immediate troop withdrawal.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 14, 2009, 3:57 pm

Nick wrote:Funny old video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

Obama promising immediate troop withdrawal.

Shhhh! You'll upset the Obama sheep!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 15, 2009, 12:28 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8361084.stm

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » November 16, 2009, 5:17 am

Nick's right. Obama is a liar and we really should have elected McCain/Palin.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 16, 2009, 2:52 pm

Because obviously that's what I said.

If that's meant to be a defence of Obama, then that is a bit embarrassing tbh. Effectively it's saying "shut up about Obama and dont criticise because it could have been worse."

Yeah, that's a great plan! Don't legitimately criticise one guy because another guy might be worse. Ignore any concept of hope or change, that's cerrrrrazzzy!

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » November 16, 2009, 5:54 pm

I don't disagree with some of your criticisms about foreign policy, but you jump straight to calling him just "a prettified version of Bush", instead of adding anything constructive. He was left with many huge messes from the previous administration and I fail to see how you can expect a sea change in international policies within the first year of his term.

I'm happy with how he has taken a very different stance on diplomacy and my hope is that he's building relations which will create a strong foundation for later changes during his term.

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » November 16, 2009, 6:27 pm

still i gotta give Nick credit for not drinking the Kool Aid like a lot of us have. I definitely did, but I have since vomited it out. I felt a lot of things would get accomplished in this first year that have not, and for awhile I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt. I still suport the guy, but Dems better move it because it already looks like they may lost their filibuster-proof majority next year. Which leads me to ask, why aren't things getting done faster? b/c dems are just as full of shit as reps i guess.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » November 16, 2009, 6:33 pm

Gzette wrote:still i gotta give Nick credit for not drinking the Kool Aid like a lot of us have. I definitely did, but I have since vomited it out. I felt a lot of things would get accomplished in this first year that have not, and for awhile I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt. I still suport the guy, but Dems better move it because it already looks like they may lost their filibuster-proof majority next year. Which leads me to ask, why aren't things getting done faster? b/c dems are just as full of shit as reps i guess.

That's really been my point all along. It's not so much that I don't like Obama (even though I may disagree with him a lot), it's more that people were looking at him like he was the second coming of Christ and that politics as we know them were going to be forever changed. Meanwhile, those of us grounded in reality knew that was not the case, and that it would be politics as usual with him, which for the most part has proven to be true.

Again, I'm not saying the guy isn't going to do any good while he's in office, there have been a few things he has got behind that I was happy to see.. However, money still talks and if the situation with the banks hasn't proven that to you I'm not sure what it will take.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 16, 2009, 7:19 pm

Gzette wrote:still i gotta give Nick credit for not drinking the Kool Aid like a lot of us have.

I didn't drink the Kool Aid!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 17, 2009, 8:46 am

I don't disagree with some of your criticisms about foreign policy, but you jump straight to calling him just "a prettified version of Bush", instead of adding anything constructive. He was left with many huge messes from the previous administration and I fail to see how you can expect a sea change in international policies within the first year of his term.

I'm happy with how he has taken a very different stance on diplomacy and my hope is that he's building relations which will create a strong foundation for later changes during his term.

Fair enough mate. I don't see how pointing out that he is a prettified Bush isn't constructive though...if we're hoping to engage truthfully in discussion.

Of course he was left with huge messes, as you know I'd be the first to accept that (

) but that isn't really an excuse for some of his positions at the moment (some of which I mentioned in my initial post) - Those aren't "slowly moving to progressive honourable foreign polices, they are, on the contrary, regressions even from Bush's second term.

In terms of his stance on diplomacy, my opinion is that if you're a US president you have two choices:

1. Be Bush - Openly say "fuck you" to the world, "we are the worlds superpower."
2. Be Obama/Clinton - Quietly say "fuck you" to the world, "we are the worlds superpower" whilst pretending he's your best pal.

Neither are trustworthy, the latter is just better at being two faced. Not exactly the hope and change I was looking for.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 17, 2009, 12:34 pm

Nick wrote:
1. Be Bush - Openly say "fuck you" to the world, "we are the worlds superpower."
2. Be Obama/Clinton - Quietly say "fuck you" to the world, "we are the worlds superpower" whilst pretending he's your best pal.

I choose option #1!

We can steamroll anyone, not counting the nuke countries due to the mess it would cause! ...also want to avoid occupations. Lets leave that to the Blue Hats!

*rawr*

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 17, 2009, 1:09 pm

I guess you should enjoy the party while you still can Winnow

If you insist on being a megalomaniacal dick about it, of course...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 17, 2009, 1:48 pm

Watch your tongue Nick or we'll Modern Warfare 2 your ass!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 17, 2009, 4:59 pm

And now with added shit eating lying grins too!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 17, 2009, 11:51 pm

I guess here's my question.

Isn't option 2 what ALL nations do? I mean obviously not all nations say "we are the world's superpower." But diplomacy is inherently about putting on a pretty face and trying to get everyone else to go along with what's in your best interests to the greatest extent possible.

Are there other nations that act only out of pure altruism?

Did you really expect that Obama would act only out of pure altruism? Do you think that his (intelligent) supporters thought so?

Are you at all impressed that he made the deeply unpopular decision to try the worst terrorism suspects in civilian court and appears to be getting ready to ship the remaining Guantanamo detainees to the United States? These are certainly not steps that are in his political self-interest.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 18, 2009, 2:47 pm

Worst terrorism "suspects" being the operative word.

Guantanamo is merely a tiny concession when you consider Agram and the black sites, a concession that's slow in coming at that.

The other things I just linked are easy enough to gloss over if you insist on being wilfully ignorant.

And yeah, god forbid a man who stands on a pulpit of altruism be expected to carry it out. (It's naive to expect it sure, it's not naive to point out lies just because lying has become acceptable to certain people , i.e by the looks of it, you.)

Unless you're just being facetious of course, which, given that this is the internet, you probably are.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 18, 2009, 3:56 pm

Nick: Same old shit

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 18, 2009, 4:58 pm

oh no my poor feelings

miir · Post by **miir** » November 18, 2009, 5:12 pm

Nick needs to get laid and/or play more video games

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 18, 2009, 5:54 pm

Shit, don't legitimately criticise the Black Godman unless you are prepared to recieve ad-hominem attacks from snivelling hunched yes men mmo "vets"! (see, we can all play this game! Sorry, you're not special, there's a good chap!)

Oh well, it is VV, it's to be expected.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » November 18, 2009, 6:06 pm

I will say, kind of in nick's defense, that from seeing the people that comment on his updates that show up on my facebook page, dude's got some pretty sexy friends.. I hope he's banging the ever loving shit out of at least one of them!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 18, 2009, 10:20 pm

Nick, I'm a pretty informed dude. Trust me, I know that Obama hasn't withdrawn troops as promised and that abuse photos are being blocked from release and so forth. In fact, if you'll kindly bother reading what I wrote on this thread, you'll note that I said that "Obama's national security policy is bad." Verbatim. You don't have to open my eyes Nick, I know. You're not educating me here; you're preaching to the choir.

Now will you bother answering my questions?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 18, 2009, 11:34 pm

Sueven wrote:Nick, I'm a pretty informed dude. Trust me, I know that Obama hasn't withdrawn troops as promised and that abuse photos are being blocked from release and so forth. In fact, if you'll kindly bother reading what I wrote on this thread, you'll note that I said that "Obama's national security policy is bad." Verbatim. You don't have to open my eyes Nick, I know. You're not educating me here; you're preaching to the choir.

Now will you bother answering my questions?

Careful you don't cut your modesty on those shards of condescension there buddy. I had already kindly read the things you had written, I do have eyes, contrary to your apparent belief.

My aim, in responding in the manner I did: Was to effectively highlight how needlessly (and boringly) facile your questions were:

Isn't option 2 what ALL nations do? I mean obviously not all nations say "we are the world's superpower." But diplomacy is inherently about putting on a pretty face and trying to get everyone else to go along with what's in your best interests to the greatest extent possible.

Yes, obviously all politicians are two faced cunts, if that's what you're trying to say.

The debate about current US foreign policy being in America's long term best interests is the crux here. Is it actually in the US' long term interests to continue down this fingers in the ears abusive, immoral and shady two faced road? Isn't that at least partially the reason why 9/11 happened?

Is the occasional 9/11 worth the risk, for the sake of exerting an imperialist strategy for global hegemony? Debateable, it depends what you value I suppose.

Are there other nations that act only out of pure altruism?

For one, I don't see why you're asking this question - I'd love to see where you got the idea that I somehow considered governmentally designated world wide altruism to be the norm. Of course, I think we'd all like to agree that it we'd at least like to hope for such a thing. Hope, a bad word apparently when speaking to certain Obama voting Americans, how consistently and tediously ironic... !

Did you really expect that Obama would act only out of pure altruism?

And you lot accuse me of thinking the world is merely black and white?! Christ!

Answering this is ultimately a waste of time, insofar as the answer is obvious within the context of the question you just asked above. Yet, to show I'm not just the frothing at the mouth imbecile that some of the reprobate pseudo intellectuals here deign title me with, (Hi Aslanna and Miir!) I'll do it:

So - to literally answer your question so the mouth breathing infants can follow: "No, but I'd obviously prefer him to!"

Do you think that his (intelligent) supporters thought so?

No, but I'd assumed they at least would have preferred him to, if they are to be, as you say - intelligent - and would have no qualms in calling him out on anything that was on the same planes of immorality as what went on in the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan years.

Call me old fashioned for wanting a progressive world where we can at least think openly and call a spade a spade, rather than gush over each other for being open minded Obama voting middle class bastions of shallow righteousness. I'd like to hope (there's that blasted word again) we could evolve beyond an endless state of shitty one sided never ending war and imperialism for the sake of nationalistic megalomania.

Are you at all impressed that he made the deeply unpopular decision to try the worst terrorism suspects in civilian court and appears to be getting ready to ship the remaining Guantanamo detainees to the United States? These are certainly not steps that are in his political self-interest.

I'm sorry, but if that's what qualifies as anything other than a very minor step back towards sanity, from the doldrums of utter lunacy that is American foreign policy in regards to prisoners of war, I don't really know what to say to you. It's about as impressive as a 2 year old coming to the realisation that shitting on the floor is slightly less preferable to defecating in their potty. That's about as much credit as that particular Obama move deserves, in the context of basic common sense and decency for people with an IQ above 10.

Like most attempted rationalists, and this is where you and I differ, because even being a rationalist in North America, it seems (from the outside and by what I see here, except in a few cases of silently reasonable people) that being a rationalist where you live seems to border somewhere in between total impotent hopelessness and out and out real-politik - it seems you're being a partial apologist for imperialism, shruggin their shoulders saying "whatcha gonna do?"

Which is fair enough, but I think we can probably agree that we can do ever so slightly more than be impotent apologists who resort to primary level discourse.

I get it - it's probably almost accidently easy to get like that when you're middle class in a first world country, playing wow, being a lawyer, or teacher or whatever, and not, say, a homeless child who's parents were killed in Afghanistan, or East Timor, or Palestine, or Iraq because of the very things you're "rationalising".

Call me old fashioned (or, like, more accurately, just another bog standard mouth piece member of Amnesty International

)... What a crime! No wonder the worlds in such a fucking state.

Oh, and for reference, I obviously don't think you're an idiot at all, but I do think we could be discussing something a bit more interesting than 12 year old dribbling neckbeard notions that "omg u are so naive if u think the government is sane."

Well duh...

Of course the government isn't fucking sane, that's not a reason not to lament the situation, or call it our for what it is. As an educated fellow, you'd think that would be obvious. (To you and some here I know it is, to the others, well, who gives a fuck what they think? They're just simple bastards with internet connections)

Edit: Well, fuck, that turned into a book, right I'm away to boil my eyes in salt after reading this cocking thread.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 19, 2009, 9:58 pm

Nick wrote:Yes, obviously all politicians are two faced cunts, if that's what you're trying to say.

The debate about current US foreign policy being in America's long term best interests is the crux here. Is it actually in the US' long term interests to continue down this fingers in the ears abusive, immoral and shady two faced road? Isn't that at least partially the reason why 9/11 happened?

Is the occasional 9/11 worth the risk, for the sake of exerting an imperialist strategy for global hegemony? Debateable, it depends what you value I suppose.

I agree completely. If you've got an idea for a better foreign policy-- and not one that's just better in a global altruistic sense, but also better for the parochial interests of the United States-- I'd love to hear it.

Nick wrote:For one, I don't see why you're asking this question

Well, because the only nation you ever criticize in this forum is America. I have two competing explanations for this-- either you think that America is by far the worst actor in the world, or you're addressing your complaints to your audience (primarily Americans). Knowing which position you take helps me to better interpret what you say.

Nick wrote:So - to literally answer your question so the mouth breathing infants can follow: "No, but I'd obviously prefer him to!"

So then the next question is whether the level of altruism he displays in his actions (and there's obviously some) is as much as he's reasonably capable of displaying. This is a question that you never address, instead you simply list something non-altruistic that he's done and leave it at that. There's no worthwhile analysis there.

Nick wrote:No, but I'd assumed they at least would have preferred him to, if they are to be, as you say - intelligent - and would have no qualms in calling him out on anything that was on the same planes of immorality as what went on in the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan years.

Well sure, I'd rather him be more altruistic (I'm selfishly including myself among the 'intelligent' class here). I certainly didn't expect him to be doing anything vastly different than he is, minus a few key areas (some aspects of national security policy, lgbt rights) where I've been substantially disappointed. And the fact that you view Bush I, Clinton and Obama as on the same moral plane as Bush II is... interesting. That seems like pretty black and white thinking to me.

Nick wrote:I'm sorry, but if that's what qualifies as anything other than a very minor step back towards sanity, from the doldrums of utter lunacy that is American foreign policy in regards to prisoners of war, I don't really know what to say to you. It's about as impressive as a 2 year old coming to the realisation that shitting on the floor is slightly less preferable to defecating in their potty. That's about as much credit as that particular Obama move deserves, in the context of basic common sense and decency for people with an IQ above 10.

Well, unfortunately it's a move that only about 30% of the country supports. You can only make so many deeply unpopular moves before you lose all of your legitimacy and power and can't make any moves at all. And that wouldn't leave us in a position to do much of anything positive.

Nick wrote:I get it - it's probably almost accidently easy to get like that when you're middle class in a first world country, playing wow, being a lawyer, or teacher or whatever, and not, say, a homeless child who's parents were killed in Afghanistan, or East Timor, or Palestine, or Iraq because of the very things you're "rationalising".

Says the Irish-born literature student at university.

Yeah, I'm sure that you had a hardscrabble upbringing, ran with the wrong crowd, have poor and immigrant friends, have met and spoken to lots of disadvantaged people, maybe even traveled to third world countries and done humanitarian work. Congratulations. So have I. Doesn't change the fact that I'm a white male American lawyer. I'm privileged and so are you. We both see the world through that privileged lens.

I get that sometimes I come across like a coldhearted, stubborn, pedantic, cynical apologist. I also get that you sometimes come across like a naive, idealistic, reactionary jackass. And we're both arrogant. We have different styles and approaches, and are capable of pissing each other off even when (like here) we largely agree on the underlying truth.

I think we'd have a lot more fun talking politics over beer. Although I do like arguing with you and hearing your perspective. Although less on American domestic politics than other subjects.