Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...reign_policy_and_security_president_ever.html

They're playing us like a violin...

"Killed Osama" needs to be like a permanent stfu card

 

[Gotchaye]

These people... Obama could walk on water, turn water to wine, cure leprosy. Hell, he could practically be Jesus incarnate and conservatives would bitch about it. They would all suddenly reject their religion because of it.

Sounds like the sort of thing the Antichrist would do to try to trick people. It's easy to tell an Antichrist - they perform miracles and they talk about peace to trick people into following them. Wolves in sheep's clothing, and all that, so shoot all sheep on sight.

 

[RustyNails]

President Obama is scheduled to make a statement on Ukraine and foreign policy at the White House at 5:15 p.m. ET.

 

[gcubed]

President Obama is scheduled to make a statement on Ukraine and foreign policy at the White House at 5:15 p.m. ET.

"I'm sorry I'm so terrible"

 

[kehs]

"I'm sorry I'm so terrible"

racist.

 

[benjipwns]

"I am turning the White House over to someone who can handle it and provide strong leadership: Dick Cheney."

 

[kehs]

Dude is fifteen minutes late, I'm gonna impeach him.

 

[speculawyer]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...reign_policy_and_security_president_ever.html

They're playing us like a violin...

Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, . . . . as if Dick Cheney gives a shit about any of the people in those places. Then again . . . the bolded are major oil exporters.

 

[RustyNails]

Dude is fifteen minutes late, I'm gonna impeach him.

racist!

 

[gcubed]

The only person a failing foreign policy tract works with are war mongers. So again, this only ever works in the echo chamber

 

[kehs]

racist!

Are you kenyan?

 

[kehs]

"I'm sorry I'm so terrible"

This was pretty accurate.

 

[RustyNails]

This was pretty accurate.

Actually the biggest news I took is that the administration is sounding pretty confident on the Iran deal.

 

[Retro]

They're playing us like a violin...

Really? We're going to hang fuckin' Boko Haram around Obama's neck now? It couldn't possibly be that Nigeria has only existed as a country for 54 years and in that time has had six military coups, almost a dozen assassinations (including at least two heads of state) and a full-fledged 3-year civil war. It couldn't possibly be that there's been Islamic insurgencies non-stop since Sharia Law was established in the northern regions two administrations ago.

Nope, Obama did it. In fact, if you rearrange "Boko Haram", it spells "Barak Homo." Secret Gay Muslim confirmed!

 

[speculawyer]

Really? We're going to hang fuckin' Boko Haram around Obama's neck now? It couldn't possibly be that Nigeria has only existed as a country for 54 years and in that time has had six military coups, almost a dozen assassinations (including at least two heads of state) and a full-fledged 3-year civil war. It couldn't possibly be that there's been Islamic insurgencies non-stop since Sharia Law was established in the northern regions two administrations ago.

Nope, Obama did it. In fact, if you rearrange "Boko Haram", it spells "Barak Homo." Secret Gay Muslim confirmed!

I lost it.

 

[RustyNails]

Wtf at the WH iftar party:

Tariq Ramadan
22 hrs ·

IFTAR AT THE WHITE HOUSE

It was supposed to be an evening where the American President showed respect to a religious community, to the millions of American Muslims who have been fasting during the sacred month of Ramadan.

It was supposed to be a political expression of respect. It ended up being a political instrumentalisation of (voluntarily) trapped Muslim leaders listening to President Obama justify the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians, declaring Israel has the right to defend itself. One wonders what is the relationship between the Iftar celebration and Israel ? What is the US administration's implicit-explicit intention in putting the Muslim leaders in such an embarrassing situation? To test their loyalty or rather their capacity to compromise or betray? They obviously remained silent.

The Israeli ambassador, Amb Dermer, also invited (why?), was actually the first to speak. One must remember what he said about Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims : Palestinians have "a cultural tendency towards belligerency" that is "deeply embedded in the culture of the Arab world and its foremost religion". This is the man who was invited to celebrate Iftar with the Muslims meanwhile his Government is destroying Gaza. From the White House he tweeted, triumphantly : "@WhiteHouse for Iftar dinner. Appreciate strong statement there by President Obama about Israel's right to defend itself."

Obviously Muslim leaders didn't tweet. It was enough of an honor for them to be invited to the White House and to have met the President. An honor, truly, dear Muslim leaders? Ordinary Muslims (and proponents of justice and dignity from other religions) in the US and around the world, as well as Palestinians, might think differently.

That's just...slimy. I don't know what to say.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Well there goes his approval rating among Muslims.

 

[Oblivion]

So there was this really dumb segment on Hardball yesterday where Matthews and his panel were talking about how both the Dems and Repubs seem to have "populists" in their ranks, Elizabeth Warren, and Rand Paul.

I'm sorry, but can someone explain to me how the hell right-wing populism is supposed to work? I mean, that's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

 

[FyreWulff]

Bootstraps for everyone

 

[Snake]

Populism isn't simply about "good things that are good for the people." It can include pandering to the baser political instincts of the lowest common denominator, or the promotion of policies whose popularity is based on a largely uninformed public. Whipping up a furor about the "Ground Zero mosque" or using "End the Fed"-style economic arguments are examples of right-wing populism, as are white supremacy and nativism.

 

[Metaphoreus]

So there was this really dumb segment on Hardball yesterday where Matthews and his panel were talking about how both the Dems and Repubs seem to have "populists" in their ranks, Elizabeth Warren, and Rand Paul.

I'm sorry, but can someone explain to me how the hell right-wing populism is supposed to work? I mean, that's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Populism pits the common man against social elites. There's nothing inherently left-wing about that.

 

[benjipwns]

So there was this really dumb segment on Hardball yesterday where Matthews and his panel were talking about how both the Dems and Repubs seem to have "populists" in their ranks, Elizabeth Warren, and Rand Paul.

I'm sorry, but can someone explain to me how the hell right-wing populism is supposed to work? I mean, that's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Populism is somewhat of a meaningless term these days as it just means appealing to "the people." Rand Paul is a "populist" because he appeals to the leery of government strain and less interventionist strains in American politics. Elizabeth Warren is a "populist" because she appeals to the distrust of big trusts/bankers and notions of the government "working for the common man."

Hitler, Chavez, Morales, George Wallace, Kirchner, Ross Perot, etc. are all "populists" as they position themselves outside the political elite and going to fight for the common man against it.

It made much more sense as a specific strain when you had the powerful political machines of the 19th century, the populist candidates were the ones who bucked them, usually getting crushed but sometimes like a Teddy Roosevelt falling backwards into positions of power. Some of the foreign names like Chavez or Hitler were similarly opposing political machines albeit of a quite different makeup.

EDIT: Well, beaten, badly. Snake had better examples too.

 

[WayneMorse]

I'm sorry, but can someone explain to me how the hell right-wing populism is supposed to work? I mean, that's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Left wing populism = people vs. Wall Street/wealthy elites
Right wing populism -= white people vs. immigrants, black people and Hollywood liberals.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Populism is reactionary, poorly thought out politics driven by the masses.

 

[Particle Physicist]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...reign_policy_and_security_president_ever.html

They're playing us like a violin...

Obama is such a awful king of planet earth.

 

[Joezie]

State's Rights....improving of the lives of citizens a little less everyday.

US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) wants to make sure the Federal Communications Commission never interferes with "states' rights" to protect private Internet service providers from having to compete against municipal broadband networks.

Twenty states have passed laws making it difficult for cities and towns to offer their own broadband Internet services, and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has pledged to use his agency's authority to "preempt state laws that ban competition from community broadband."

He may get a chance to make good on that promise soon. EPB, a community-owned electric utility in Chattanooga, Tennessee said it is "considering filing a petition to the FCC" to overturn a state law that prevents it from offering Internet and video service outside its electric service area.

Update:

The House today approved Blackburn's proposal by a vote of 223-200, according to The Hill. It would still need Senate approval to become law.

 

[Tamanon]

State's Rights....improving of the lives of citizens a little less everyday.



Update:

Dat free market

 

[NYCmetsfan]

State's Rights....improving of the lives of citizens a little less everyday.



Update:

That's party line no?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Also, Benji. Thanks for the Roma thread. Love seeing euro GAF being racist

 

[Oblivion]

Bootstraps for everyone

Populism isn't simply about "good things that are good for the people." It can include pandering to the baser political instincts of the lowest common denominator, or the promotion of policies whose popularity is based on a largely uninformed public. Whipping up a furor about the "Ground Zero mosque" or using "End the Fed"-style economic arguments are examples of right-wing populism, as are white supremacy and nativism.

Populism pits the common man against social elites. There's nothing inherently left-wing about that.

Populism is somewhat of a meaningless term these days as it just means appealing to "the people." Rand Paul is a "populist" because he appeals to the leery of government strain and less interventionist strains in American politics. Elizabeth Warren is a "populist" because she appeals to the distrust of big trusts/bankers and notions of the government "working for the common man."

Hitler, Chavez, Morales, George Wallace, Kirchner, Ross Perot, etc. are all "populists" as they position themselves outside the political elite and going to fight for the common man against it.

It made much more sense as a specific strain when you had the powerful political machines of the 19th century, the populist candidates were the ones who bucked them, usually getting crushed but sometimes like a Teddy Roosevelt falling backwards into positions of power. Some of the foreign names like Chavez or Hitler were similarly opposing political machines albeit of a quite different makeup.

EDIT: Well, beaten, badly. Snake had better examples too.

Left wing populism = people vs. Wall Street/wealthy elites
Right wing populism -= white people vs. immigrants, black people and Hollywood liberals.

Right, I get all that. But I meant specifically if there's an economic brand of right-wing populism. That's what Matthews and panel were discussing. That both Warren and Paul were against Wall Street (lol).

 

[WayneMorse]

Right, I get all that. But I meant specifically if there's an economic brand of right-wing populism. That's what Matthews and panel were discussing. That both Warren and Paul were against Wall Street (lol).

Well, most libertarians and hard right Tea Partiers are capitalists of course, but they think it's the government that creates things like economic bubbles and monopolies in areas like telecommunications. Basically that capitalism is awesome and the only reason it sucks is because of big gubmint.

 

[Metaphoreus]

State's Rights....improving of the lives of citizens a little less everyday.

Update:

From the article:

While Blackburn thinks the FCC shouldn't interfere with states' rights, she doesn't seem to be concerned about states interfering with municipalities' rights to offer their own broadband services.

Municipalities are literally political subdivisions of the states. The relationship of a municipality to the state government isn't analogous to the relationship of a state to the federal government.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So there was this really dumb segment on Hardball yesterday where Matthews and his panel were talking about how both the Dems and Repubs seem to have "populists" in their ranks, Elizabeth Warren, and Rand Paul.

I'm sorry, but can someone explain to me how the hell right-wing populism is supposed to work? I mean, that's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Libertarians tend to oppose corporate welfare. That's the only thing that comes to mind in terms of populist views of theirs.

 

[alstein]

So there was this really dumb segment on Hardball yesterday where Matthews and his panel were talking about how both the Dems and Repubs seem to have "populists" in their ranks, Elizabeth Warren, and Rand Paul.

I'm sorry, but can someone explain to me how the hell right-wing populism is supposed to work? I mean, that's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Right-wing populism can exist. It's usually nativism, fundamentalism, and anti-immigrant though. The guy who got rid of Cantor seemed like a right-wing populist. It's possible to combine those views with leftist economic policies.

From the article:

Municipalities are literally political subdivisions of the states. The relationship of a municipality to the state government isn't analogous to the relationship of a state to the federal government.

The feds need to shove more stuff down the South's throat- flat out. Only way we're going to get progress.

 

[speculawyer]

Libertarians tend to oppose corporate welfare. That's the only thing that comes to mind in terms of populist views of theirs.

They like to say they do. But if actually elected they would support it because it would support themselves personally with donations and anything in your self-interest is good right? It is an ideology that eats itself.

 

[RustyNails]

Crazy lady that sent ricin to Obama and Holder got 18 years in the can:

A copy of the letter sent to Mr Bloomberg posted online showed a stained, typewritten document that contained numerous spelling errors.

"You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns. Anyone wants to come to my house will get shot in the face," it read.

"The right to bear arms is my constitutional God given right and I will exercise that right til the day I die. whats in this letter is nothing compared to what ive got planned for you."

 

[thepotatoman]

They like to say they do. But if actually elected they would support it because it would support themselves personally with donations and anything in your self-interest is good right? It is an ideology that eats itself.

The libertarian idea for that is to make all campaign finance 100% transparent. Then when voting for the guy that wants to end the big ISP friendly, monopoly making regulations, you can see if comcast donated to him.

And like a lot of libertarian ideas it'd work perfectly if everyone knew all the available information perfectly. But in practice the easily available and emotionally manipulative information in the ads paid for by that donation money is going to beat out the unpromoted cold hard data on some website somewhere, every single time.

 

[benjipwns]

Right, I get all that. But I meant specifically if there's an economic brand of right-wing populism. That's what Matthews and panel were discussing. That both Warren and Paul were against Wall Street (lol).

Depends on how you define "right-wing" then.

And like a lot of libertarian ideas it'd work perfectly if everyone knew all the available information perfectly. But in practice the easily available and emotionally manipulative information in the ads paid for by that donation money is going to beat out the unpromoted cold hard data on some website somewhere, every single time.

Thus the "need" to suppress the amount of available information. That way we can continue with the fantasy that politicians are selfless stewards of the public interest while they continue their brilliant extortion racket. But it won't be so messy with all the wrong sorts of unapproved "people" saying things that complicate the nice, tidy, narrative The People want to hear. (Whatever it is when The Party decides on this years.)

 

[JesseEwiak]

Depends on how you define "right-wing" then.


Thus the "need" to suppress the amount of available information. That way we can continue with the fantasy that politicians are selfless stewards of the public interest while they continue their brilliant extortion racket. But it won't be so messy with all the wrong sorts of unapproved "people" saying things that complicate the nice, tidy, narrative The People want to hear. (Whatever it is when The Party decides on this years.)

Yes, the Koch Brothers opinion was so oppressed before Citizen's United.

 

[thepotatoman]

Thus the "need" to suppress the amount of available information. That way we can continue with the fantasy that politicians are selfless stewards of the public interest while they continue their brilliant extortion racket. But it won't be so messy with all the wrong sorts of unapproved "people" saying things that complicate the nice, tidy, narrative The People want to hear. (Whatever it is when The Party decides on this years.)

What are you talking about?

I think transparency is a good thing, and I would support legislation aiming for it, including the one coming from the libertarian party, I'm just pointing out how it wouldn't be nearly sufficient enough to fix the problem of money in politics.

And like speculawyer said, money in politics is what breeds a big government which only benefits big corporate, which is the opposite of what libertarians want.

 

[Diablos]

Crazy lady that sent ricin to Obama and Holder got 18 years in the can:

Wasn't this woman in The Walking Dead?
lol

I often wonder if it helped the show's ratings. I'm sure a lot of people who absolutely hate Obama watch it.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Right, I get all that. But I meant specifically if there's an economic brand of right-wing populism. That's what Matthews and panel were discussing. That both Warren and Paul were against Wall Street (lol).

Like this? See also right-wing complaints about crony capitalism, such as this.

Libertarians tend to oppose corporate welfare. That's the only thing that comes to mind in terms of populist views of theirs.

Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell offers a different kind of populism.

The Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard also casts intellectuals as among the elites working against the common good.

These are just examples off the top of my head.

The feds need to shove more stuff down the South's throat- flat out. Only way we're going to get progress.

Unfortunately for your political preferences (but fortunately for the concept of government-by-consent-of-the-governed), the federal government doesn't get to dictate every political outcome.

 

[Wilsongt]

colbertzerodayswithoutrape.jpg

Todd Akin Had a Whole Lot to Say About ‘Legitimate Rape’ This Morning on MSNBC

Former GOP senatorial candidate Todd Akin joined Daily Rundown host Chuck Todd for an uncomfortable interview Thursday morning, in which Akin defended his “legitimate rape” comments that arguably cost him a Senate seat two years ago.

Akin argued that “legitimate rape” was short for a legal term, “legitimate case of rape.”

“This is something that was intentionally misunderstood and twisted for political purposes,” Akin said. “Because it doesn’t make any sense to say a conservative is saying that rape is legitimate. I mean, that doesn’t even add up.”


The former congressman also defended his comments that women’s bodies “had ways of shutting that whole thing down,” referring to conception from rape. “I’m not presenting myself as a doctor,” Akin cautioned, before citing studies saying that the stress incurred after rape could affect pregnancy.

“That’s really an ancillary question to the final question, which is: does a child conceived in rape have the same right to life as a child conceived in love,” he said.

Akin added that it was unfair that he had been pilloried by the media when Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton (who defended an alleged rapist in 1975) were applauded.

“I know you want to be mad at the media, and be mad at the president, but it’s Republicans who threw you under the bus,” Todd said, asking if Akin felt pressure from a Republican party that wanted him nowhere near the 2014 election.

Akin denounced the GOP’s “party leaders” that openly tried to force him out of his Senate race. “They don’t believe anymore in the process of the primary election,” Akin said. “They think that the people in primaries in various states are too stupid to pick the right person.”

 

[benjipwns]

Yes, the Koch Brothers opinion was so oppressed before Citizen's United.

This comment would be relevant if the Koch Brothers political activity only started after Citizens United restored some of the American people's rights.

What are you talking about?

I think transparency is a good thing, and I would support legislation aiming for it, including the one coming from the libertarian party, I'm just pointing out how it wouldn't be nearly sufficient enough to fix the problem of money in politics.

Money in politics isn't a problem, it's inherent. The entire point of politics is to benefit at the expense of others in ways that would be illegal outside of politics.

The only way to limit the influence of "money" is to limit the powers of government, not to restrict the rights of citizens. If the government can't force people to buy my products or enact barriers to me facing competition or shake me down for contributions in various ways, why would I want to waste money on politics?

You said:

And like a lot of libertarian ideas it'd work perfectly if everyone knew all the available information perfectly.

Which is the exact opposite of the needs of libertarian ideas. They assume imperfect knowledge. It's the anti-libertarian/statist/socialist/conservative/etc. policies that assume perfect information knowledge and then suppress information until the appearance of it is achieved.

 

[AntoneM]

colbertzerodayswithoutrape.jpg

Todd Akin Had a Whole Lot to Say About ‘Legitimate Rape’ This Morning on MSNBC

Would have loved a follow up asking what constitutes a "legitimate case of rape" and how it's different from "legitimate rape".

 

[Retro]

colbertzerodayswithoutrape.jpg

Todd Akin Had a Whole Lot to Say About ‘Legitimate Rape’ This Morning on MSNBC

Conservative Fuck-up Strategy
1. Open mouth, insert foot.
2. When you get called on it, double down.
3. When you're in the hole, keep digging.
4. When you hit rock bottom, start blasting.
5. When you're out of dynamite, go thermonuclear.
6. Resign, make wheelbarrows of money on speaking tours and cable "news" as an expert on everything you got wrong in the first place.

I think Akin is a solid 4 right now, I don't think we've seen a real meltdown yet, but it's a'comin'.

 

[Mike M]

colbertzerodayswithoutrape.jpg

Todd Akin Had a Whole Lot to Say About ‘Legitimate Rape’ This Morning on MSNBC

Did anyone actually interpret his statement to mean anything but "legitimate case of rape"? He seems to think the outrage is that people deliberately misinterpreted his statement as "justifiable rape," rather than that he was insinuating that women who want abortions in the case of rape are lying about being raped.

For fucking real?

 

[Metaphoreus]

“This is something that was intentionally misunderstood and twisted for political purposes,” Akin said. “Because it doesn’t make any sense to say a conservative is saying that rape is legitimate. I mean, that doesn’t even add up.”

He's right about this point. Interpreting his term "legitimate rape" to mean some rape that is legal or morally defensible doesn't even make sense in the context of his comment. The problems with his comment are that (1) it tends to call into question whether a woman who became pregnant through rape was really raped; and (2) he seems to be relying on bad science. Those are bad enough on their own, so there's no need to concoct further complaints based on misunderstanding him.

EDIT: Here's an example of someone interpreting Akin's comment to refer to a type of rape:

Let me first of all say, the views expressed were offensive. Rape is rape. And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we’re talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people and certainly doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

He's right about this point. Interpreting his term "legitimate rape" to mean some rape that is legal or morally defensible doesn't even make sense in the context of his comment. The problems with his comment are that (1) it tends to call into question whether a woman who became pregnant through rape was really raped; and (2) he seems to be relying on bad science. Those are bad enough on their own, so there's no need to concoct further complaints based on misunderstanding him.

EDIT: Here's an example of someone interpreting Akin's comment to refer to a type of rape:

What is legitimate rape? He was implying that women lie after rape and make consensual sex, rape. If you put a qualifier in front of a word you're trying to distinguish between rapes.

Why distinguish between rapes and his comments that followed about the body 'shutting it down' clearly imply he thinks there are multiple kinds of rapes.

He's comment implies that some things most people call rape, isn't rape (a women going home and bringing a man to bed but then saying no at the last minute but the man continuing, getting a girl drunk and having sex)

 

[thezerofire]

He's right about this point. Interpreting his term "legitimate rape" to mean some rape that is legal or morally defensible doesn't even make sense in the context of his comment. The problems with his comment are that (1) it tends to call into question whether a woman who became pregnant through rape was really raped; and (2) he seems to be relying on bad science. Those are bad enough on their own, so there's no need to concoct further complaints based on misunderstanding him.

EDIT: Here's an example of someone interpreting Akin's comment to refer to a type of rape:

I was always under the impression those two points were why people were outraged in the first place, not necessarily that it's legal or defensible