rEvolutionist wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:I pretty much think all mainstream parties' politicians are lying bastards. And most of the others probably are too. The more corporate money you get in the system, the more two-faced a politician has to be towards his/her electorate. Regarding Obama, I can't remember them all. The most obvious one that springs to mind is the Guantanamo thing - although, i guess there were realities regarding that that hit home after he actually got in office. With Obama the whole "change" thing was a giant lie. He's just another corporatist. He's not interested in really changing anything. Although I have a secret hope he is going to go postal once elected in for his last term and really ram some changes in.
LOL -- you think he lied about Guantanamo, but not really, it was just "realities" that he hadn't considered before....
What do you want from me? It was a lie in the sense that he promised something he didn't deliver on. Do you agree or not?
Yeah, but there is an obvious difference between a broken promise and a lie. It would only be a lie if he didn't intend to follow through when he made the promise.
And, what I was pointing out was your rhetorical switcheroo. You say he lied, but then you pull back on that and say "well, maybe it's just the realities he was faced with..." which, of course, would make it...oh.... not a lie.
rEvolutionist wrote:
There was legitimate criticism from republican commentators during the election campaign (the last one) which made the point that Obama was perhaps a bit naive about the realities of politics. Guantanamo could have well been one of those things. In principle he was right to want to shut it down. But the practicalities of what to do with all the prisoners there obviously became a ticking time bomb he didn't want to set off. I'm not sure what you expect me to say about this. I have agreed that Obama is a liar like the rest of them. Are you offended that I think he is a liar, or do you agree with me?
You said he was an insincere liar. I was just wondering what you think he lied about. You mentioned two things, but both of which you basically explained why they weren't really lies.
rEvolutionist wrote:
And, he's a corporatist who doesn't really want change, but you think it's possible he will ram through the change he doesn't want in his second term...
Are you incapable of parsing the meaning of a winking smilie and a joke? FFS, you are so desperate to argue with someone you are pulling imaginary shit out of the air.
No, you just said he was a liar because he was a corporatist (as one of your examples of how he lied) and then you said he might ram through some change next term.
I asked a serious question, and I thought you answered seriously. O.k. you think Obama is a liar, is a corporatist, and doesn't want change, and you were only kidding when you mentioned something about him ramming through change next term.
rEvolutionist wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Regarding the US vs Australia, well this thread is about the US. You seem to be one of these people who really can't handle criticism of their country/system. Pulling the old - "Hey! What's that over there?" trick isn't much of a comeback. But for the record, I do criticise Australian politics as well. But as far as I can tell the reality is that the US is the worst in the world when it comes to corporate (and otherwise giant sums of private money) interference in the democratic governance process. Hence why it's my belief that the US has the worst democracy of the developed nations, more or less.
Sure, the thread is about the US. But, you said "that [bastards] is why the AMERICAN democracy is a farce," as if it is peculiarly American.
No, that's your bruised ego interpreting it that way. This is a thread about the US. I was commenting about the US. Grow up, FFS.
No, that was me asking you to clarify what you said. So, now we have done so, and we now know you think it's not just American democracy, but other democracies too, that are farcical. So, how about we approach it this way: What democracies on the planet do you think are NOT farcical?
rEvolutionist wrote:
I didn't want to put words in your mouth, so I asked you to clarify. Normally, if someone thinks all democracies are a farce because they're all about electing bastards, one wouldn't single out one nationality.
Unless it was in a thread about one particular nation.
No, that would be like talking about African Americans, and having someone say "well, black people commit crime." Guaranteed the first reaction would be to clarify that not only black people commit crime.
rEvolutionist wrote:
Like, every race and nationality has people who commit crimes, but saying "Australians commit crimes," or "blacks commit crimes..." reasonably opens up the statement to the question "are you saying that JUST Australians [or blacks] commit crimes? Or, do you acknowledge that others do too?" -- it's the single out of Americans (or any group) for generally applicable propositions that I take issue with, and definitely not the criticism of the US.
Bullshit. You can't handle criticism of the US. This is a thread about US politics. I criticised US politics in this thread about US politics. If you can't handle that, perhaps you should turn your internets off so you can stop the butthurt.
Bullshit. I can handle criticism of the US. What I won't abide is nonsense like the shit you puke up every other thread.
I'm more than happy to hear your argument about why the American democracy is farcical. So far, you've given us "the US elections involve bastard politicians" (which you acknowledged is common to all democracies), and then you added that the US is, in your view, worse than other countries in terms of the "interference" of corporations in the political process. You presented no evidence for this belief.
Anything else, or does that just about sum up your genius on the subject?
rEvolutionist wrote:
You do criticize Australian politics as well? Where? Can you direct me to the threads...?
As if you give a fuck. Hey! What's that over there? --------->
I do. I am also fully aware that you say you criticize Australian politics, but if you do, you don't start threads about it. You instead pontificate on that which you have very little knowledge.
rEvolutionist wrote:
Do you have any evidence of the US being the worst "when it comes to corporate 'interference' in the democratic governance process..."?
Do you really need me to supply the first google hit about the levels of money in US politics? It dwarfs most (all?) other nations. FFS. You must live under a rock or something.
Well, the amount of money in the US both in absolute terms and per capita, and the size of the US economy, the income of Americans, the GDP, pretty much everything about the US, including population, dwarfs "most" other nations by far, so one would expect the amount of money to be much higher.
All I asked for was whether you had any evidence for your assertion. You can say "yes" and provide it. You can say, "no" and rely on your own gut or sense of it. Or, you can say "yes" but I don't feel arsed to provide it. Those are the options. It seems as if you've opted for option 3.
rEvolutionist wrote:
And, aren't corporate organizations part of the democratic process? I mean, they are part of the country, and they have a stake in what happens, don't they?
Democracy is about people, not corporations. There's a hint in the Latin or Greek root of the word.
Of course, and corporations are associations of people.
rEvolutionist wrote:
People form corporations, like PETA and American Atheists, Inc, Joe and Moe's Bar and Grill, Inc., Apple, Inc., and other corporations to associate for various purposes. I had no idea that when they espoused different political views they were considered an "interference?"
They can espouse whatever they want. It's when they start buying politicians and writing their own regulations it becomes a corruption of democracy. Aren't you supposed to be a bit of a libertarian? You're a pretty shit one if you can't see the shocking corporate interference in US government. And as usual, debating with you is a complete waste of time.
Oh, well, sure - buying politicians is bad, obviously, and is probably already illegal, and if a decent piece of legislation was offered to remedy the buying of politicians problem, I'd support it.
Am I supposed to be a bit of a libertarian? No. Other than some overlap, I've made it very, very clear many times that I am not a Libertarian.
Waste of time? Note - you made a claim. I asked you to back it up. You think that is too much to ask. Gotcha.
