Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2014 - 09:32am PT
|
You're a better man than I am.
For you!
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2014 - 11:13am PT
|
he common denominators are repressing individualism, personal liberty, and assuming control of the economy.
Hmmm sounds like the Republican agenda to me.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 22, 2014 - 08:19am PT
|
my favorite: "You take advantage of a national disaster such as an economic collapse or an attack to demonize your opponents and push your agenda. You use these events to strike fear into the population in an attempt to scare people into voting for you and your cause. It’s all about fear and scare tactics."
""don't let a crisis go to waste"...Rahm Emmanuel...barry's first chief of staff...now, f, explain how both he and barry are tea party advocates
ok, back to business:
“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion,”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371625/attacking-diversity-thought-jonah-goldberg
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such men in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 27, 2014 - 06:48am PT
|
another victory for "reproductive rights":
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/mississippi-72-babies-aborted-are-black
i'm sure you're very proud, f; you're protecting thousands of black babies from the horrors of voter id laws, the despair of job lock, the burden of paying for their own birth control, the pain and suffering from the war on women, and the shame of growing up in a racist nation...i expect you'll be doubling your monthly contribution to planned parenthood
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such me in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 07:58am PT
|
How did Obama take advantage of some (unspecified) crisis?
He hopped onto the coattails of Bush's and used them to yet further extend government power over the lives of everyday Americans.
Which one?
You name it. How about 9/11 for a start. How about recession? Banking meltdown? Pick your poison!
What did he do?
Cleverly, he promised very specific "change" on a host of levels. Then, once elected, the only "change" he implemented was to oversee much, much MORE of EXACTLY the same crap as we got with Bush, and for the EXACT same motivations:
** Big government and ever-increasing spending: "We've got to spend some money now to pull us out of this recession. But as soon as we're out of this recession, we've got to get serious about starting to live within our means, instead of leaving debt for our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren." (Is this the same guy that refused to negotiate in ANY way with Republicans concerned to reduce spending before raising the debt limit? Is this the guy that has now FAR outspent even Bush, and he's not done yet!?!)
** Corporations suckling at the teat? Business as usual. No change in sight.
** Massive and inordinate military spending. http://www.freedomworks.org/content/president-obama-not-actually-cutting-military-spending-he-should
** Continuation of futile and even illegal wars: "If we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home, we will end this war. You can take that to the bank." All I can take to the bank under Obama is LESS.
** Guantanamo: "We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years." Where was the executive action? Where was the whole-Congress Democratic majority in getting this done?
** Domestic spying: "We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime" Apparently "reject" actually means "embrace" in the Obamactionary.
** The Patriot Act: "We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years." Where was an executive action? Where was the Democratic Congress in getting this done?
** Habeas corpus: "We don’t always catch the right person. We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist, it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb thrower, but it's Barack the guy running for president. So the reason that you have this principle [habeas corpus] is not to be soft on terrorism, it's because that’s who we are. That's what we're protecting." Okay, so where IS it?
** FOIA requests: "The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails... In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public." Oh, wow! Seriously?
** Tracking of citizens: "We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war." No, instead "we" FULLY support the tracking of EVERYBODY at a scope not imagined before in human history! This is another case where in Obama's "dictionary," the word "reject" really means "embrace."
** Warrantless wiretapping: "We will review the current Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program." And, apparently, after review, "we" will find it just FAB and want to extend it even further into the lives of Americans, and then LIE about what we're doing until we get caught at it (see the following item).
** Whistleblowers: "Often the best source about waste, fraud and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism . . . should be encouraged rather than stifled." Uhhh... the name Snowden come to mind?
** Anybody prosecuted or imprisoned for the mortgage meltdown debacle? Nope!
** Tax increases? "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Okay, flat out LIE! Even Obamacare was "legalized" by being called a "tax."
** Government transparency? "My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government." Uhh... it is to laugh (or cry).
And, keep in mind that when Obama was elected, the Democrats owned Congress and only extended their majority in both houses. For all of his presidency, Democrats have had the majority in the Senate, and for most of his presidency, Democrats have had a majority in the House. So, you can't blame Congress for Obama's failures, lies, and broken promises. HIS party OWNED the government, and at the very time when he enjoyed an unprecedented honeymoon period with Americans!
How did it work out?
Well, history doesn't yet have a solid "take," but the initial results strongly suggest: It is the SUCK!
The only "change" we got was to swirl a bit farther down the vortex.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 09:33am PT
|
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 10:20am PT
|
He doesn't want to engage you, he only wants to preach to you.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 10:34am PT
|
This is a Shakespeare thread? I thought it was about Huxley.
StuporTopo can get so confusing.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 10:53am PT
|
and for most of his presidency, Democrats have had a majority in the House.
Obama was elected in 2008. He took office in January of 2009. Republicans took control of the house in 2010. It is now 2014. How does that even remotely equal "most of his presidency?"
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 01:46pm PT
|
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 02:00pm PT
|
After trying to "claim" George Orwell and other famous authors for the side of right-wing America (and being challenged by Dr F), bluering wrote
most literary scholars would disagree with your assessment of their works. As the authors would themselves. -bluering But what if I told you that George Orwell was one of the most famous socialists of the 20th century, that he was a member of socialist groups, fought alongside communists in the Spanish Civil War, and believed himself to be a "democratic socialist"? What if I told you that Orwell would be in agreement with Dr F that It's always the Right Wingers that rule by totalitarism, including Russian and Red Chinese Communism, they were the opposite of anything liberal - Dr F After all, in a preface to Animal Farm, Orwell wrote
nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country - George Orwell and from The Road to Wigan Pier
The hoary legend of Communism leading to Fascism. ... The element of truth in it is this: that the appearance of Communist activity warns the ruling class that democratic Labour Parties are no longer capable of holding the working class in check, and that capitalist dictatorship must assume another form if it is to survive. - Orwell Or if that's not blunt enough for you, how about
please notice that I am arguing for Socialism, not against it. - Orwell So just how are literary scholars supposed to interpret these words, in your opinion? Or perhaps you've just been engaged in a little bit of doublethink?
Edited to note:
I'm not trying to "claim" George Orwell as a Democrat, just to be clear. There is little doubt he would have many critical things to say about the Obama administration and American partisanship in general. Just pointing out that were he alive today, he would be raked over the coals by Fox News and conservative Christians as a 'radical Commie ideologue'. But since he is not alive, right-wingers have instead opted for the 'revisionary history' route. Conservative bloggers and Glenn Beck pull his quotes out of context and public schools teach Animal Farm to children as a sort of Cold War narrative about the triumph of capitalism in America and evil failures of communist Russia. It so richly ironic and absolutely absurd that the works of Orwell should be appropriated in such an Orwellian way; one can't help but laugh.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 02:02pm PT
|
Don't sugarcoat it for him Bryan!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Bryan, you are distorting "right-wing" to mean that all conservatives are "right-wing", and therefore, fascists because fascists are right-wing.
That would be like me calling all Dems, commies.
There are gradations to political philosophy.
George Orwell would be a conservative independent if he were alive today...
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
bluering said That would be like me calling all Dems, commies.
Well thank god that never happens.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
An anarchist in the late 1920s, by the 1930s he had begun to consider himself a socialist. In 1936, he was commissioned to write an account of poverty among unemployed miners in northern England, which resulted in 'The Road to Wigan Pier' (1937). Late in 1936, Orwell travelled to Spain to fight for the Republicans against Franco's Nationalists. He was forced to flee in fear of his life from Soviet-backed communists who were suppressing revolutionary socialist dissenters. The experience turned him into a lifelong anti-Stalinist.
Between 1941 and 1943, Orwell worked on propaganda for the BBC. In 1943, he became literary editor of the Tribune, a weekly left-wing magazine. By now he was a prolific journalist, writing articles, reviews and books.
Sounds like every young lad. "If you aren't liberal when you're young, you have no heart, and if you are still liberal when you mature, you have no brains".
Bryan, you are trying to make Orwell seem like a socialist or commie.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
That would be like me calling all Dems, commies.
priceless statement considering all the times that you have called every liberal on this forum a commie
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Interesting, Cait. I read into to 'A Brave New World' something different.
It was what feminism will eventually do. And an obsession with sex and not long-term companionship, or the family unit.
It was about personal pleasure at all costs, not creating family units. The destruction of the family was always a goal of communists, and that's where I think Huxley was going. The Venona Papers would later validate this notion of the Commies.
Feminism is fine in moderation, like all other things. But like environmentalism it can be taken to drastic extremes. Unreasonable extremes. Another example would be religious extremists.
I find it interesting that you read anti-woman bias into his book. I found it more nihilistic, anti-family.
There's a Big Lebowski clip out there about nihilists....classic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_29yvYpf4w
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!