Neoprog Posner sucks up to Chicoms

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Tangent regarding atheism and religion split to a new thread, here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12421

Beat me to it by seconds.

[FBM]

Yes, indeed. I caught myself going down that path/falling into that trap not so long ago. I had to bitch-slap myself out of it. Wish everyone else would follow suit.

In what? Bitch-slapping you?

hee hee...ehhh...no.

[Coito ergo sum]

The "far left" (I think you should really re-evaluate that term when talking about American politics)

Moveon.org, Code Pink, International Answer and the ACLU are far left, by any definition. It's a political PR tactic to pretend that the US does not have leftists, and to pretend that Obama is a moderate or would not be left if he were in Europe. Obama's beliefs are far left. He may not be in a position to implement them easily because of the strength of the right in the United States. But that doesn't change what his "druthers" are.

Oh please. I don't think Chairman Mao would consider those groups anything but reactionary (the ACLU? Really???). Only a conservative would describe those leftist groups as "far left". What dross.
Obama is far left??? In your dreams. He's moved the American politcal pendulum back from the right swing it took during the first six W. Bush years. That does not constitute him being a leftist.

His views make him a leftist. He's not been successful in implementing all of his views or his 'druthers. He settled, for example, to the attainable goal with respect to socialized medicine. Had he been King, he would have implemented pure socialized medicine - he has said many times that that is what he supports - single payer, nationalized health care system.

I'd say Britain's new Conservative Party PM is further left than Obama.

I've not made the comparison. However, Obama's own views are very far left.

Despite his time in the senate, his books, speeches, campaigning and the most intensive vetting process known to mankind, conservative types always seem to know a secret socialist when they see one.

The vetting process revealed what he believes in - and he was among the farthest left Senators in terms of his voting record.

isn't making much noise about Gitmo because, as Obama found out, it's not so easy to simply close the place. It's a process.

As Obama found out? Found out? Found OUT???? Only a complete and total ignoramus would not have seen that it was a process.

But, it's not a process that has to take 15 months. It's a prison facility. He can let them all go, if indeed, as the far left claimed 15+ months ago, that most of them were completely innocent and were being held for no reason - you just let them out. Right? Alternatively, move them to another facility. However, of course, the same jokers - I think Reid was one of them - that were lambasting bush to close the place, said "not-in-my-back-yard!"

Sheesh, you need to get laid or smoke some weed. Of course it was obviously a process. "Found out" was a figure of speech; I was referring to the fact that there was a rather public debate about it a little while back, and then it quieted down. And how would you have gone about doing it any faster?? I think you already provided that answer within your answer. [/quote]

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of a group of folks that were ready to string up the prior administration for war crimes for not closing down a prison that that they apparently don't mind keeping open now. Now that the Democrats control the Presidency, the House and the Senate, they couldn't ask for more authority to carry out their agenda. They got elected making certain promises and pointing fingers over certain issues - now, wiretapping? Not an issue. Patriot act? All cool with that now. Gitmo? Not a problem - the issue is "more complex" than when we were looking to try Bush and Cheney for war crimes. Rendition? Not a bad process now. Executing "suspected" terrorists? not a problem - very reasonable now, since "our guy" is the one on the trigger.

Why is it quiet at the moment? Surely you understand the concept of priorities in government.

I'm holding them to their own priorities.

If the economy was just rosy tomorrow, if the oil spill was cleaned up, if nobody was still debating health care, I'd say the War on Terror would rise back up in the hierarchy, and we'd hear more noise about the issue. Eventually we will.

It's not about "hearing about it." It's about certain folks being hypocrites.

Are things being done to further it along right now? I'm not sure, and neither are you.

I'm sure that (1) nobody from the Administration has disclosed that there is anything being done, and there is no reason for secrecy on the issue that something is being done, (2) Obama is the one who gave himself a 1 year timetable to close it, and then he just back-burnered the deal, (3) There is no pressure being brought to bear from the groups that were previously lambasting Bush for Gitmo being open - none - nobody cares anymore, because it's Obama, not Bush. It was never about right and wrong - it was about "our guys being in power."

Yep. That's all it's about. Nothing more. People are nothing but political animals.

Have a look at Politifact.com. There's a difference between a broken promise, a kept promise, a compromise and a delay. Did Obama deliberately break his promise, or are his hands a bit tied over this? Again... you already answered that question![/quote]

He deliberately broke the promise, it seems. Just like he did with his "five day waiting period before I sign any bill into law" - he couldn't wait to break that promise. And, his "nobody making over $150,000 will see their taxes go up one dime, nonsense. And, the tax cut for senior citizens, and all that. Out of Iraq in 12 months, or 16 months, depending on the day you heard him spout off -- close Gitmo immediately! Then it was one year.... now it's off the table..... His supporters imbibed the Kook Aid like it was the Nectar of the Gods...when I pointed out that there was no way those promises would be honored - his supporters were quite clear that I was wrong. Now, they just don't care. Just like they don't care if suspected terrorists get offed in Pakistan without arrest or trial. It's all good now, because Obama is the guy. Before the election, many on the left that I talked to would even deny the EXISTENCE of a war on terrorism, and would say that it was something Bush invented! Now, there's little, if any, ire about executing suspected terrorists. Why? Because now it's o.k. to have a war on terrorism when Obama is in the white house - it's not a war crime for him to order the deaths of suspected terrorists, or to not put detainees on trial for years, or to not give the detainees all the rights afforded by the Geneva Conventions.... it's just fine for him to use warrantless wiretapping, etc.

[Hermit]

Obama's own views are very far left.

Among libertarians that's a common assessment of Obama's stance. I think people who advocate the violent overthrow of the ruling class, followed by the dictatorship of the proletariat, and involving the end of private ownership of all means of production, the end of wage slavery and a state of permanent revolution make Obama look more like your typical proponent of "capitalism with a humane facade".

[Trolldor]

If Obama's far left then I'm the guy that inspired Marx.

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama's own views are very far left.

Among libertarians that's a common assessment of Obama's stance. I think people who advocate the violent overthrow of the ruling class, followed by the dictatorship of the proletariat, and involving the end of private ownership of all means of production, the end of wage slavery and a state of permanent revolution make Obama look more like your typical proponent of "capitalism with a humane facade".

I never said he was the "farthest" left. Obama's own books show that his roots are in Marxist and communist principles. In Dreams of My Father, Obama wrote about his close "mentoring" received from Frank Marshall Davis. Later he attended socialist conferences at the Cooper Union. He was close to Alice Palmer in Illinois (Alice herself wrote about attending the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the CPUSA newspaper, People's Daily World, June 19, 1986. Nine years later, Palmer assisted Obama in his bid to succeed her in the Illinois Senate. His Illinois Senate run was launched, incidentally, at a Fundraiser organized at Bill Ayers' (Weather Underground) and Bernardine Dorhn's Chicago home. Obama was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America. Obama endorsed the Socialist Bernie Sanders, and the Communist Party of America endorsed Obama, expressly. Obama's Church is Liberation Theology, which is rooted in Marxism.


When people use the term "far right" to describe libertarians or US conservatives, they also are talking about people who aren't as far right as fascists or Nazis.

[Hermit]

I never said he was the "farthest" left

That's most magnanimous of you. Fact is that Obama is not "far left" either. Never mind Obama's past associations. If he was a politician in any western style democracy, and advocating the policies there that he is currently attempting to implement over your way, he'd easily slot in as "middle of the road" in most of their liberal parties.

When people use the term "far right" to describe libertarians...

Please take note that - regardless of my opinions of libertarians - I have never ever described them as "far right". Besides, using your standards, wouldn't fascists be more properly described as "the farthest right"?

[Coito ergo sum]

I never said he was the "farthest" left

That's most magnanimous of you. Fact is that Obama is not "far left" either. Never mind Obama's past associations.

Why never mind? They aren't that long ago, and they formed is basic philosophy.

After all, how many times did his predecessor have to answer for associations made between his grandfather and prominent figures of the 1930s? In the case of Obama, he wrote about his influences in his own books.

If he was a politician in any western style democracy, and advocating the policies there that he is currently attempting to implement over your way, he'd easily slot in as "middle of the road" in most of their liberal parties.

You are missing the distinction between what is politically possible, and what his ultimate goals and what he would prefer to do. Sure, if you compared what he's actually achieved, he's just "leaning left," and is not extreme. However, he is only limited by opposition forces and forces within his own party that are not as left as he his.

When people use the term "far right" to describe libertarians...

Please take note that - regardless of my opinions of libertarians - I have never ever described them as "far right". Besides, using your standards, wouldn't fascists be more properly described as "the farthest right"?

The farthest right would be, in my view, fascists, Nazis and true monarchies.

Many, perhaps not you, have described libertarians and conservatives in general as "far right." And, in fact, there is a tendency on this board to characterize the entire US as "far right" because of the PR move to position Obama in the middle because people allege that if he was anywhere else in the world he would be classed as a moderate.

[charlou]

I think it's policies that are important and should be discussed, rather than labels.



"Us and them" discussions don't get the job done.

[Twiglet]

I think it's policies that are important and should be discussed, rather than labels.



"Us and them" discussions don't get the job done.

indeed.

From what I've seen of Obama so far, his foreign policy seems pretty near identical to his predecessor. All the military engagements Bush started are still ongoing. Guantanamo is still open. Extrordinary rendition persists as does the Patriot Act, with no moves to change either. Extrajudicial killing continue in Pakistan. For the first time, Obama has allowed assassination of US citizens without trial, something even Bush did not try to get authorised. There has been almost no reaction to the move.

Obama manages not to antagonise so many people, but if anything, his policies are more aggressive than those of Bush.

On the domestic front, national healthcare has amounted to little more than a mandatory tax paid unconditionally to insurers without any checks and balances to the quality of provision received. Obama seems as keen on appeasing big pharma as Bush was to appease big oil. So perhaps the pecking order of the paymasters has changed, but US citizens seem to be taking a back seat to corporate interests, to nobodys big surprise I imagine.

Regarding relations with China, the US is in a catch 22. Chinas economy is vast and rapdily growing. China holds trillions of $US in currency reserves, and wants a high value $US because of it, but also relies on exporting to the US to bring revenues in, as well as attracting massive inward investment from Europe and America to continue the process of industrialisation.

Any analysis of how the US acts towards China on human rights should be viewed in the broader context of trade and economic co-dependency. China is flexing its newfound muscle towards a grossly weakened US, and so US diplomats give the Chinese face by acknowledging their own shortcomings in order not to offend or be seen as hypocrites.

IMO Obama is not a left leaning politician at all, his politics are very closely aligned to Bush's. He has a slightly different set of paymasters. He is a bit more pragmatic. He is much more of a realist in his dealings with Europe, especially the uk, where he has been extremely forthright in putting Britain in its place as one of a big bunch of European countries which is nothing all that special.

[Hermit]

I think it's policies that are important and should be discussed, rather than labels.

"Us and them" discussions don't get the job done.

True. Those libertarians just can't help themselves, but. :I-love-pork:

[Coito ergo sum]

I think it's policies that are important and should be discussed, rather than labels.



"Us and them" discussions don't get the job done.

To an extent you are correct. But, someone's political philosophy and ultimate goals - what they're aiming for - informs their policy proposals.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think it's policies that are important and should be discussed, rather than labels.



"Us and them" discussions don't get the job done.

To an extent you are correct. But, someone's political philosophy and ultimate goals - what they're aiming for - informs their policy proposals.

"Know thy opponent's agenda, that ye may know thy opponent."

[Ian]

Obama manages not to antagonise so many people, but if anything, his policies are more aggressive than those of Bush.

IMO Obama is not a left leaning politician at all, his politics are very closely aligned to Bush's.

Well, you and Coito each have radically different opinions on Obama. I don't think either are especially realistic.

As for Obama not antagonizing too many people, have you not heard much about the partisan rhetoric happening in this country?? He's all but the second coming of Lenin according to conservatives.

And how could he possibly be more aggressive than Bush? Bush never would've considered talking to Iran, probably wouldn't have led the rounds of nuclear reduction/proliferation talks, etc. He's in the process of closing Gitmo (no thanks to much bureaucratic resistance), and forces in Iraq will be drawn down as promised. Comparisons to Bush astonish me. There's too many people on the left who heard little more than "change" in 2008 and now seem to be shocked that Obama hasn't turned the world into a utopia overnight. Give the guy some time - he's been awfully busy over the last 15 months, mostly on the domestic front. That was one helluva mess he inherited.

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama manages not to antagonise so many people, but if anything, his policies are more aggressive than those of Bush.

IMO Obama is not a left leaning politician at all, his politics are very closely aligned to Bush's.

Well, you and Coito each have radically different opinions on Obama. I don't think either are especially realistic.
As for Obama not antagonizing too many people, have you not heard much about the partisan rhetoric happening in this country?? He's all but the second coming of Lenin according to conservatives.

Obama just antagonizes different people.

How could he possibly be more aggressive than Bush? Bush never would've considered talking to Iran, probably wouldn't have led the rounds of nuclear reduction/proliferation talks, etc.

The entire debate during the campaign where Obama was running on the "no preconditions to talks" nonsense, was just PR for supporters who wanted to hear that all we needed to do was have smart negotiations with countries like Iran, and we'd get better results. The fact of the matter is, I give Obama more credit than to be stupid enough to have a sit down with Ahmadinejad, and it's going on 16 months since he took office and he still hasn't had those talks. Why? Because to do so would be ridiculous. Exhibit A: "U.S. Says Only Reason for Talks with Iran Is Enrichment Halt" http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51500 - and, those would be talks between someone like Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, and such, and not Obama. Obama never intended to sit down with clowns like Ahmadinejad - that was just snake oil for the purposes of getting elected, to posture himself as a diplomat to Bush-the-war-monger. It was marketing.

A year ago, Obama paid lip-service to his election message about no preconditions to talks. But, he never had those talks, and all that the administration did is offer the same deal that the international community had been trying to get Tehran to accept for the previous four years: extensive economic and diplomatic help if uranium enrichment is suspended, further economic pressure and diplomatic isolation if it does not.

And, to say Bush would not sit down for nuclear arms talks is counterfactual too. In 2002, he cut a reduction deal with Putin. http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/mo ... nj02j.html

He's in the process of closing Gitmo (no thanks to much bureaucratic resistance), and forces in Iraq will be drawn down as promised. You sound like the kind of left-leaning guy who's suddenly shocked that the change Obama promised hasn't materialized overnight. Give the guy some time - he's been awfully busy over the last 15 months, mostly on the domestic front.

The forces in Iraq can't be drawn down "as promised," since if they were drawn down as promised, they'd be about out completely by now (except for a few to guard the US Embassy). And, Gitmo is off the table. There is no "process" that is underway - Gitmo will still be open in 2012. That, too, was another election campaign piece of rhetoric. Having a prison on Guantanomo Bay is no worse than having one in Kansas. It's the how it is run that counts. There has been no mention of a material change in procedure within the prison either, which is a rather telling fact too. Even if you don't shut it down, if the Administration really felt it was so bad, they would have simply changed the procedures.