Thanks Obama!

Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Bernie Sanders?
It sounds like he'll push for the original version of the health insurance plan Obama presented, which is consistent with socialist health.
Click to expand...
Bernie Sanders hasn't a fucking chance, you're a man of science, the numbers just don't add up...
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Bernie Sanders hasn't a fucking chance, you're a man of science, the numbers just don't add up...
Click to expand...
And Captain Cornhair does?
I'm just as surprised as you, but one can't make such a conclusion in light of what has been happening.
I know I said before that Sanders was just teeing the ball for Shillary, but now I'm not so confident. There is a backlash against the traditional politician based on my observations of wider commentary. Cornhair happens to be a litmus test of that hypothesis, and he seems to be verifying it. Even amongst what you might deem "liberals", there is an acknowledgement of Cornhair's role in breaking the mould.

So why not Sanders?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
And Captain Cornhair does?
I'm just as surprised as you, but one can't make such a conclusion in light of what has been happening.
I know I said before that Sanders was just teeing the ball for Shillary, but now I'm not so confident. There is a backlash against the traditional politician based on my observations of wider commentary. Cornhair happens to be a litmus test of that hypothesis, and he seems to be verifying it. Even amongst what you might deem "liberals", there is an acknowledgement of Cornhair's role in breaking the mould.

So why not Sanders?
Click to expand...
He just seems like the left's version of Ron Paul, too many parallels between the Bernie "Revolution" and the Rawn Pawl "Revolution".

The US is centre-right, they don't know how to do any differently.
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
All of the Democrat nominees are losers with policies that don't and won't work. I don't see a redeeming value in any of them. And that goes for goofy Joe Biden too if he ever decides to throw his hat in the ring. I think it's a bit late for that goof ball.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben said:
All of the Democrat nominees are losers with policies that don't and won't work. I don't see a redeeming value in any of them. And that goes for goofy Joe Biden too if he ever decides to throw his hat in the ring. I think it's a bit late for that goof ball.
Click to expand...
Lol...

And yet you support Ronald McDonald Trump?
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
He just seems like the left's version of Ron Paul, too many parallels between the Bernie "Revolution" and the Rawn Pawl "Revolution".

The US is centre-right, they don't know how to do any differently.
Click to expand...

I actually cannot argue against that. Unfortunately, there is a helluva lot of truth to what you're saying, historically.
And yes, the Pawl/Sanders comparison has not escaped my analysis; that was my earlier impression.
However, the millennials seem to be more open-minded to Soc-Dem, and that is where I am questioning the possibility for paradigm shift. Granted, how many of them are going to vote? If I look at my generation, I was an anomaly in the fact I was eager to become part of the process as soon as I turned 18. My peers did not become engaged until they were in their later 20s, mostly. So it is that dynamic that could make or break the Sanders "revolution", IMHO.

But it's still early...I imagine by the Winter Solstice things will become more clear. In the meantime, I have Canaduh's eRection to contemplate (Oct 19th!)
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
I actually cannot argue against that. Unfortunately, there is a helluva lot of truth to what you're saying, historically.
And yes, the Pawl/Sanders comparison has not escaped my analysis; that was my earlier impression.
However, the millennials seem to be more open-minded to Soc-Dem, and that is where I am questioning the possibility for paradigm shift. Granted, how many of them are going to vote? If I look at my generation, I was an anomaly in the fact I was eager to become part of the process as soon as I turned 18. My peers did not become engaged until they were in their later 20s, mostly. So it is that dynamic that could make or break the Sanders "revolution", IMHO.

But it's still early...I imagine by the Winter Solstice things will become more clear. In the meantime, I have Canaduh's eRection to contemplate (Oct 19th!)
Click to expand...
Penus.

Good night to you sir.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
no.
Click to expand...
He's correct, Buck.
The political compass demonstrates that quite readily. Democrats are in quadrant 1 right along with repubs.
Until a proper 3rd quadrant ideology manifests in a more organized manner, the options available--regardless of desire--is limited to centre-right, at best.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
He's correct, Buck.
The political compass demonstrates that quite readily. Democrats are in quadrant 1 right along with repubs.
Until a proper 3rd quadrant ideology manifests in a more organized manner, the options available--regardless of desire--is limited to centre-right, at best.
Click to expand...
saying that america is a center-right country ignores the fact that 35-40% of people don't vote in presidential elections, much less off year elections.

if we had mandatory voting or close to 100% turnout, america would be a solidly blue, progressive nation.

this is beyond dispute. hence why republicans try to surpress efforts to make voting easier and more accessible.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
saying that america is a center-right country ignores the fact that 35-40% of people don't vote in presidential elections, much less off year elections.

if we had mandatory voting or close to 100% turnout, america would be a solidly blue, progressive nation.

this is beyond dispute. hence why republicans try to surpress efforts to make voting easier and more accessible.
Click to expand...

Mmm...I think we are interpreting his words differently. I took it to mean Americans vote centre-right, not necessarily because they want to but because the choices are limited as such.
It's possible I misunderstood him.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Mmm...I think we are interpreting his words differently. I took it to mean Americans vote centre-right, not necessarily because they want to but because the choices are limited as such.
It's possible I misunderstood him.
Click to expand...
there's really not a lot to interpret.

"america is a center right nation" = false. no. it is not.

it's basically a fox news motto regurgitated.
 
Blunted 4 lyfe

Blunted 4 lyfe

Well-Known Member
s9p said:
No, that's true, the people of the state did, but then again I did not say Obama legalized it, I said Obama has made it possible for states to explore the option of legalizing cannabis and has made it possible to not get busted for stupid things like the smell of weed. Also, what's this obsession you have with Obama's balls? You are probably hungering for something a little different and darker than your dad's, eh? He was probably rough on you this morning so you gotta hit the internet with your anger. It's okay bro, you can get medical weed for that PTSD your dad caused due to all that trauma he put your holes through.
Click to expand...
Priceless!
 
Blunted 4 lyfe

Blunted 4 lyfe

Well-Known Member
s9p said:
No, that's true, the people of the state did, but then again I did not say Obama legalized it, I said Obama has made it possible for states to explore the option of legalizing cannabis and has made it possible to not get busted for stupid things like the smell of weed. Also, what's this obsession you have with Obama's balls? You are probably hungering for something a little different and darker than your dad's, eh? He was probably rough on you this morning so you gotta hit the internet with your anger. It's okay bro, you can get medical weed for that PTSD your dad caused due to all that trauma he put your holes through.
Click to expand...
Ouch!
 
Blunted 4 lyfe

Blunted 4 lyfe

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
Yup. Iran-Contra scandal.

Isn't it super ironic that all these Republicans are like "omg Obama, imperial president!" Then they forget about how Reagan circumvented an international arms embargo on Iran, and Congress on funding the Contras.

For anyone else that's interested, and @cc2012

Groups backed by the IRGC (Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution/Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, began to take Westerners hostage including Americans.

It's important to note two things before this: 1) Iran was under an arms embargo at the time 2) The Boland Amendment had prohibited funding of the Contra rebel groups in Nicaragua because the CIA had carried out several sabotage missions without Congress' knowledge, the Contras were labeled terrorists by everybody in the world except for us, and the Contras were known for protecting drug routes through Nicaragua and trading narcotics for arms.

We sold arms to Iran, via Israel. Israel shipped the arms to Iran, Iran paid Israel, we resupplied Israel, and Israel paid us back. The National Security Council then readjusted the plan to directly sell the weapons to Iran, at an inflated price. With the mark up, we took the funds to the CIA which would then go down to Nicaragua and give it to the Contras. The Contras would also get money from the Colombian narcos to help move cocaine through Nicaragua (and earlier in the 80s it was found that the Contras would also trade cocaine for arms). All the while the DEA is scratching it's head going, "How is so much cocaine getting into the U.S.!"

So the Reagan administration effectively went around the world's back, and Congress' back at the same time to push it's own agenda. Nothing that Obama has done compares to this.
Click to expand...
Well said, I have no idea why (Reagan) did not get impeached,
pnwmystery said:
Yup. Iran-Contra scandal.

Isn't it super ironic that all these Republicans are like "omg Obama, imperial president!" Then they forget about how Reagan circumvented an international arms embargo on Iran, and Congress on funding the Contras.

For anyone else that's interested, and @cc2012

Groups backed by the IRGC (Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution/Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, began to take Westerners hostage including Americans.

It's important to note two things before this: 1) Iran was under an arms embargo at the time 2) The Boland Amendment had prohibited funding of the Contra rebel groups in Nicaragua because the CIA had carried out several sabotage missions without Congress' knowledge, the Contras were labeled terrorists by everybody in the world except for us, and the Contras were known for protecting drug routes through Nicaragua and trading narcotics for arms.

We sold arms to Iran, via Israel. Israel shipped the arms to Iran, Iran paid Israel, we resupplied Israel, and Israel paid us back. The National Security Council then readjusted the plan to directly sell the weapons to Iran, at an inflated price. With the mark up, we took the funds to the CIA which would then go down to Nicaragua and give it to the Contras. The Contras would also get money from the Colombian narcos to help move cocaine through Nicaragua (and earlier in the 80s it was found that the Contras would also trade cocaine for arms). All the while the DEA is scratching it's head going, "How is so much cocaine getting into the U.S.!"

So the Reagan administration effectively went around the world's back, and Congress' back at the same time to push it's own agenda. Nothing that Obama has done compares to this.
Click to expand...
Kudos to you for pointing out a black eye on U.S. History that all Republican supporters would like us to forget, Reagan should have been impeached and kicked out of office and sent to prison for breaking the LAW.

There were 14 criminals who were convicted but Poindexter was the only one who served time but later exonarated by Papi Bush.

And they impeach Clinton for getting his peepee wet! Get real. I know, I know Clinton was impeached for lying but it boils down to turning a domestic problem into a national crisis by Clinton haters. Seems like second terms for Replican Presidents end up in scandals or economic disasters since Nixon except 2 Ford and H.W. Because they sucked so bad they were 1 termers
B4L
 
Last edited:
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Perspective, Buck.
He and I both live in Nations with well-developed 3rd quadrant politics.
You and the rest of America don't.
Click to expand...
Ignorance is his best friend, he's never left the States and doesn't realise his idea of left is our idea of centre right.

It's a shame American lefties are so "steal the rich's money, fuck them, we deserve it moar"...even more "Socialist" nations don't adopt that ridiculous stance.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Ignorance is his best friend, he's never left the States and doesn't realise his idea of left is our idea of centre right.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of his travel experiences. I'm not going to make that judgment, but I do laugh at the "left-right" commentary I see in the US media. And in fairness, Buck does score fairly high on the Socialist scale, otherwise. However, that doesn't change the fact the political environment prevents him from realizing that ideal. He has lamented that point in the past IIRC.

It's a shame American lefties are so "steal the rich's money, fuck them, we deserve it moar"...even more "Socialist" nations don't adopt that ridiculous stance.
Click to expand...

Well, we are likely to test something akin to that hypothesis in Canada after Oct 19th, if the momentum continues rolling the way it is. The promise is to tax the rich (mostly corps), but not for such glib reasons, and that money is going to be funneled into (what appears to be) a shitload of programs across the board to lift the lower quintiles. However, it will be a minority gov't so it's not likely to gain as much traction as they advertise. I also suspect they aren't going to do much in the way of re-nationalizing any industries, for similar reasons, which is too bad; we fucked up when we let our petroleum industry go completely private.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top