Independent Roll Call

[Yardvark]

Nope. Well said.

Where do we go from here?

Share This

[kootchman]

Yardvark..The left had both houses of congress, the White House…how much more empowered can ya get?… except blatant facism the penultimate end game for worshippers of the all powerful state… Our war mongering neo-cons eh? Historical fact for ya… the USA has been at war longer under Democratic presidents than Republicans.. Obama has now outspent “Dubya” in Afghanistan and Iraq…and started another and the Nobel Peace Laureate just dragged our asses into Uganda. The dude is popping drones in 12 countries as we “speak”… Hmmm?

Share This

[Yardvark]

I guess those points are why I’d say that the left hasn’t been in power. I’m decidedly on the left, but I don’t need or want the US to suddenly become socialist. I’m a firm believer in the social capitalism system that we have (at least in theory) and a government only as large as it is efficient and self-supporting.

Even with those guidelines, there’s obviously a long left wing wish list, a lot of which actually could’ve been accomplished if the left really was empowered. When I look at that list and look at what Obama sincerely tried to achieve, there isn’t a ton of overlap, though. When I look at what he and that super majority accomplished, there’s even less.

I haven’t done the math on the war spending, for instance, but, if what you say is true, I think that’s a real indication that the left hasn’t been nationally empowered. Having a ton of Democrats in powerful positions apparently doesn’t ensure that.

Share This

[DBP]

I agree with metrognome’s concerns about the wastefulness of war, but I also agree with kootchman in the sense that it’s not right to consider warmaking as a Republicans-only deal.

Yeah, we can blame “W” and his cronies for stupidly getting us bogged down in Iraq.

Yeah, we can blame them for not doing their homework on Afghanistan.

But no, it’s not reasonable to paint all Republicans (or even all “neocons”) as warmongers, while letting Dems keep their halos.

Senator Patty Murray (Democrat) has personally told members of my peace group that she will NEVER vote against military appropriations bills as long as America is at war anywhere. Or in other words: forever.

Moreover, Murray and other Dems have consistently bankrolled porkbarrel military projects here in Washington while supporting arms sales to Israel (which I consider to be an apartheid state), Egypt, and other American “clients.”

—Stoking the military-industrial complex?

—Selling weapons to bullies?

—Bankrolling endless war?

Are these the actions of peacemakers? I think not.

I urge people who are truly against militarism to do their own research and speak out against it — and the people who support it — wherever it rears its ugly head.

 

Share This

[Andy]

Metrognome:

Anyone have any ideas for taking a different tack on political threads

I’ve often wondered if these so-called “discussions” would actually amount to something if nobody ever used the words liberal or conservative or republican, democrat, libertarian, independent, etc. Stick only to using names of politicians, specific policies, and specific effects or non-effects of said policies, instead of imaginings about motivations based on someones party affiliation. It would take away an awful lot of the sense of name-calling and personal insult that you get if you read these forums (and for those of you too involved to see it clearly, it is bad), and might restrict conversation to the issue instead of the vague sense of evil that is implied whenever someone says “Rethugs” or “Demoncrats” or whatever is the day’s fancy for “civil” discourse.

DP’s post above mine here is a good example, as he illustrates that as soon as you hear the word Republican you assume a whole host of traits that muddy your ability to keep your thoughts on the subject and address it honestly. Works the other way, too. Democrat? Tax my Grandchildren! Die for the unions! It’s silly.

All hail D(B)P, Forum Techno-thug, peace-keeper, and probable dirty hippie!

Share This

[Yardvark]

Excellent comment, Andy. Anything that works and welcomes more people into the discussion. I’ll keep it in mind and try to give it a go. Thanks for the insight!

Share This

[kootchman]

What insults?

Share This

[kootchman]

metrognome … you are revising history..again. No one “stole” an election. Al Gore won the national popular vote. He lost the electoral college. He lost the popular vote in Florida. That ended that game. Constitutionally sanctioned. Sometimes you are just on the losing side. I works that way. The national economy is built on debt and that is not a stable economy. The left and the right can have all the agendas they want. Just pay for them as you go. We are touching 15 Trillion dollars… maybe it is such a rarefied number it can’t be comprehended. Whenever the federal government underwrites risk, or subsidizes prices rise and efficiency falls. What has risen faster than healthcare? A college education. Nationally it has risen over 250% in the last decade. Why so? Because the government backs the loans, or loans outright. McDermott tells ya he did a good thing…expanded Pell grants..so you can borrow away..and who wouldn’t? You need the education to be viable. .then he tells the very very liberal education establishment he did a good thing…they can raise salaries, build palaces cause’ he upped the Pell grants..and then he comes to the 10% who pay 78% of the taxes to pay for his pork. Liberals lap it up…freebies… except when you graduate…and your 30K starting salary job goes to paying off a 50K loan. You have been neutered as a consumer and participant in the economy… at best you will enter the market ten years later than my generation. Your standard of living will suck. You will have lost the autonomy of young adulthood… having to bunk with roomies to meet costs or worse..live at home. Teenagers until age 35. The same reason the housing bubble crashed, Fannie Mae (who created mortgage backed securities) met William Jefferson Clinton who authorized credit default swaps…why wouldn’t the banks lend? There was no risk. And unknown to most… we also bailed out European banks who bought the derivatives. There was no risk in any direction to the banks. They had a sure customer and were insured against losses (AIG) . The truth is, the housing boom was hiding the loss of manufacturing jobs and that pleased both parties… we had full employment for over a decade… all built on a house of cards. It is a simpletons story to blame the “evil banks”… your congress was a neccesary actor and active participant for the play to go on.

Share This

[kootchman]

metrognome… one thing right… the debt that can never be redeemed… the war fighters. PTSD for Nam vets.. who did 12 month tours was tough enough… how about Marines and Soldiers with 60 months of combat? You might want to take a hard look at the “all volunteer” force… it’s a good concept to build a immediate response militar around, but when you and I as citizens allow our Congress to commit to an extended ground game… throw the blood of your own on the alter of Mars. When 40 per cent of the population have theirs at risk instead of 2 per cent… it comes to a friggin halt. No deferments, just blood up by lottery. You get called ya go. Bet they don’t last very long when your peach faced little precious Harvard bound darling has some boot time before he can go. War is different than the vicarious thrill and shared glory of an NFL playoff… which is how we treat our war fighters… how disgusting was it.. to watch those college kids after we killed the raghead.. chanting “USA. USA, USA” outside the White House.. like a hockey game??. Did it strike anyone as gladitorial l? Like the decrepit end stages of the Roman Empire?

Share This

[Author]

Posts