Important line to take away from this; "The mayors on that conference call are Democrats; the FBI and the DHS are led by Democrats; Obama is a Democrat. The State is not your friend, OWS, it is your master. "
The State acts in the interests of the wealthy--whether headed by Democrats or by Republicans.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that were true, but face facts: jackboot tactics don't need to be coordinated from above, they're human nature. Give a bunch of human beings billy clubs, guns and riot gear, and they're going to use them when they get an excuse.
I consider that cynical; only a small percentage of the population would act like that, IMO.
BTW, Obama is no better than Bush or the nuts running under the GOP ticket.
I don't think it's cynical to acknowledge that power corrupts, and people adjust their behavior according to what roles they're given in a society. It's not cynicism, it's history. It's academia (look up the Stanford Prison Experiment). It's literature (there's a reason why "Lord of the Flies" is widely seen as a microcosm of humanity).
Anyhow, do you recognize the irony in talking about cynicism, and then in the next sentence saying Obama is no better than Bush or the GOP candidates? You're concerned about civil liberties, yet you think he's "no better" even though he's eliminated Bush's "free speech zones" and his waterboarding, and unlike Bush, is not engaging in voter disenfranchisement? Even though Bush lied us into invading Iraq, but Obama's withdrawing our troops by the end of the year (and pulling out of Afghanistan by 2014)?
There's a lot to complain about, especially the fact that Obama has continued turning America into a surveillance state... but to say he's "no better" than Bush or than any of the torture-happy saber rattlers running on the Republican side right now, is just... cynical.
What you call a cynical observation, I call looking at the big picture. Obama has made some improvements, but overall his record on civil liberties is just as bad as his predecessor's.
The sentence that stood out to me was "Obama has made some improvements."
Not nearly enough, as far as I'm concerned, but some is better than none, and better than what his opponents are offering, which is to rescind his improvements.
What about Gary Johnson? He wants to eliminate the Patriot Act altogether. I'd say that's better than what Obama's offering.
Gary Johnson can't even get his party to let him participate in debates and doesn't register on the polls. His party doesn't want him, and Republican voters don't want him. Unless that changes, he doesn't count as a viable opponent.
Then vote for Obama and get Bush's 4th term, if that'll make you happy.
If you don't see the difference between Bush and Obama, then you're only looking at a limited set of issues. If I have to choose between two candidates who both think it's ok to spy on Americans and to maintain military bases all over the world, I'm going to pick the one who at least agrees with me on other matters. And regardless of what you would like to see happen, the choice in 2012 is going to be between a Republican and the Democrat. If you want to register what's essentially a protest vote and write in Gary Johnson in November of 2012, more power to you.
If you're okay with selling out your principles, that's fine with me.
It’s funny to watch some people telling us that Obama is the same as the Republicans while the Republicans assure us that Obama has changed everything. The inability to see the differences between the perspectives of others is a common problem among extremists. It’s sometimes hard to understand but it’s always self-serving.
Ken, the Republicans AND Obama are screwing us over. We need to vote them ALL out if we want to see real change.
Don Quixote was a very principled man.
One of my main principles is voting for the person who's going to do far less damage to the country, and may actually do some good, instead of wasting my vote on someone who has no chance and in so doing helping elect the person who's going to do far more damage.
View Comments (19)
Excellent work, Darrin.
Agreed!
Thank you, WWMD.
What the cops are doing is deplorable, but there are violent nuts in the OWS movement as well.
- Man throws aluminum water bottle at UC Berkeley Student. http://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/18/man-throws-alu...
Face it, at this point neither the cops or the protesters can claim the moral high ground.
Again I post this interesting tidbit: Obama administration may have helped coordinate crackdown of OWS protests. http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/16/obama-administr...
Important line to take away from this; "The mayors on that conference call are Democrats; the FBI and the DHS are led by Democrats; Obama is a Democrat. The State is not your friend, OWS, it is your master. "
The State acts in the interests of the wealthy--whether headed by Democrats or by Republicans.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that were true, but face facts: jackboot tactics don't need to be coordinated from above, they're human nature. Give a bunch of human beings billy clubs, guns and riot gear, and they're going to use them when they get an excuse.
I consider that cynical; only a small percentage of the population would act like that, IMO.
BTW, Obama is no better than Bush or the nuts running under the GOP ticket.
I don't think it's cynical to acknowledge that power corrupts, and people adjust their behavior according to what roles they're given in a society. It's not cynicism, it's history. It's academia (look up the Stanford Prison Experiment). It's literature (there's a reason why "Lord of the Flies" is widely seen as a microcosm of humanity).
Anyhow, do you recognize the irony in talking about cynicism, and then in the next sentence saying Obama is no better than Bush or the GOP candidates? You're concerned about civil liberties, yet you think he's "no better" even though he's eliminated Bush's "free speech zones" and his waterboarding, and unlike Bush, is not engaging in voter disenfranchisement? Even though Bush lied us into invading Iraq, but Obama's withdrawing our troops by the end of the year (and pulling out of Afghanistan by 2014)?
There's a lot to complain about, especially the fact that Obama has continued turning America into a surveillance state... but to say he's "no better" than Bush or than any of the torture-happy saber rattlers running on the Republican side right now, is just... cynical.
What you call a cynical observation, I call looking at the big picture. Obama has made some improvements, but overall his record on civil liberties is just as bad as his predecessor's.
The sentence that stood out to me was "Obama has made some improvements."
Not nearly enough, as far as I'm concerned, but some is better than none, and better than what his opponents are offering, which is to rescind his improvements.
What about Gary Johnson? He wants to eliminate the Patriot Act altogether. I'd say that's better than what Obama's offering.
Gary Johnson can't even get his party to let him participate in debates and doesn't register on the polls. His party doesn't want him, and Republican voters don't want him. Unless that changes, he doesn't count as a viable opponent.
Then vote for Obama and get Bush's 4th term, if that'll make you happy.
If you don't see the difference between Bush and Obama, then you're only looking at a limited set of issues. If I have to choose between two candidates who both think it's ok to spy on Americans and to maintain military bases all over the world, I'm going to pick the one who at least agrees with me on other matters. And regardless of what you would like to see happen, the choice in 2012 is going to be between a Republican and the Democrat. If you want to register what's essentially a protest vote and write in Gary Johnson in November of 2012, more power to you.
If you're okay with selling out your principles, that's fine with me.
It’s funny to watch some people telling us that Obama is the same as the Republicans while the Republicans assure us that Obama has changed everything. The inability to see the differences between the perspectives of others is a common problem among extremists. It’s sometimes hard to understand but it’s always self-serving.
Ken, the Republicans AND Obama are screwing us over. We need to vote them ALL out if we want to see real change.
Don Quixote was a very principled man.
One of my main principles is voting for the person who's going to do far less damage to the country, and may actually do some good, instead of wasting my vote on someone who has no chance and in so doing helping elect the person who's going to do far more damage.