The Liberal Gun Club Forum

"He concedes, however, that if Obama rival Mitt Romney wins, it’s likely to make income inequality “even greater than it is now.”

When Obama loses and the country takes yet another step to the right, when the great liberal reorientation fails to materialize, when the next "leftist" candidate runs from the right of Obama, what will we talk about then?

The right didn't get where they are by betting on some absurd crash and burn phoenix from the ashes strategy. They got where they are by capturing the middle and slowly, incrementally, moving things rightwards.

Greengunner wrote:When Obama loses and the country takes yet another step to the right, when the great liberal reorientation fails to materialize, when the next "leftist" candidate runs from the right of Obama, what will we talk about then?

That our political system remains irrecoverably corrupt. The next leftist candidate will run from the right of Obama, because the Democrats are owned by largely the same interests as the Republicans. Incremental creeping to the right, or at least towards greater authoritarian state and business power, is the goal of the backers of both the Democrat and the Republican party. Who is in office simply determines which group of people will be cheerleading the creep towards authoritarian power. With a Republican in office, Democrats publicly declaim the creeping. With a Democrat in office, Republicans publicly declaim the creeping. The creeping continues no matter who is in office.

Greengunner wrote:"He concedes, however, that if Obama rival Mitt Romney wins, it’s likely to make income inequality “even greater than it is now.”

When Obama loses and the country takes yet another step to the right, when the great liberal reorientation fails to materialize, when the next "leftist" candidate runs from the right of Obama, what will we talk about then?

The right didn't get where they are by betting on some absurd crash and burn phoenix from the ashes strategy. They got where they are by capturing the middle and slowly, incrementally, moving things rightwards.

I agree with this. So many people vote against their own and their descendants interest because they are victims of media "brainwashing" an example might be an auto mechanic who joins the tea party. Somehow, the "liberals" (I am sure he/she would use a derogatory term) are responsible for the fact that she/he cann't get ahead. His information comes from the idiot box (tv) or blog. Faux news is very popular. The right has realized the power of the media and the power of a dream and has sold it. Liberals come off as wishy washy children wanting the nanny state to protect them. The right offers the dream of the independent person swaggering their way up. The right has an image of strength and the left one of weakness. The conservatives promoted that image and they captured the middle.

We get the Government we deserve.
The US citizens are self centered and pridefully ignorant, and so easily swayed by the memorizing shallowness that is TV.

They are just like us. That's who we elect. It's vanity.
Bush was popular because he reminded people of themselves.

136 years ago my favorite US author said

History has tried hard to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.

Now, to go and stick one at the very head of the government couldn't be wise. - Mark Twain
- New York Herald, 26 August 1876

All you need is ignorance and confidence and the success is sure. - Mark Twain

We have the best government that money can buy. - Mark Twain

So you want a repeat of the Bush win in 2000?

SwampGrouch wrote:So you want a repeat of the Bush win in 2000?

I was wondering when this tired old gem would pop up.

the comedian wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:

I was wondering when this tired old gem would pop up.

The adjective "tired" does not apply to true classics!

SwampGrouch wrote:So you want a repeat of the Bush win in 2000?

Are you asking me?

Bush didn't win in 2000. He was appointed.
The thugs in Ohio suppressed a large share of the vote.
So I say he cheated the second time.
I believe he invaded Iraq to get re-elected

Was there something in my post that made you think I wanted that?
The post with all the Mark Twain posts?
Who were you responding to?

I'm saying I believe the majority of humans are selfish vain shallow greedy people and we elect people just like us. Bush was an example. Romney is also an example.

Democracy will always end up like this.
So will most forms of self government.

To make this shit work we'd have to stop being human and become like ants.

I don't want to be an ant.
They ain't got no creativity.

And don't even get me started on ant freedom.

I used Mark Twain because this isn't new.
It's about us.

GuitarsandGuns wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:So you want a repeat of the Bush win in 2000?

Are you asking me?

Bush didn't win in 2000. He was appointed.
The thugs in Ohio suppressed a large share of the vote.
So I say he cheated the second time.
I believe he invaded Iraq to get re-elected

Was there something in my post that made you think I wanted that?
The post with all the Mark Twain posts?
Who were you responding to?

I'm saying I believe the majority of humans are selfish vain shallow greedy people and we elect people just like us. Bush was an example. Romney is also an example.

Democracy will always end up like this.
So will most forms of self government.

To make this shit work we'd have to stop being human and become like ants.

I don't want to be an ant.
They ain't got no creativity.

And don't even get me started on ant freedom.

I used Mark Twain because this isn't new.
It's about us.

I do not think you were meant to be the sole recipient of that post. Many on this thread spoke in those terms and it seems that some have the feeling that it will be some kind of wake up call to the left. Its hard to get the true meaning of what people are saying unless you are making eye contact with the speaker.

People Romney=Obama, They are just puppets, with the same puppet masters. What they say is completely different but what they will do is exactly the same.

gendoikari87 wrote:People Romney=Obama, They are just puppets, with the same puppet masters. What they say is completely different but what they will do is exactly the same.

^This.

Bush was a lunatic cowboy. McCain was a senile crazy old man with a wacko for a running mate.

Romney is Obama is Romney is Obama. You think Romney could have gotten elected governor of a state as liberal as Massachusetts if he wasn't a mealy-mouthed centrist? We're not talking the former governor of Texas here, a psychopath who joked about killing people, we're talking about the bland centrist rich guy who joked about firing people.

Romney, Obama, same diff. They're both going to push for expansions of corporate and state power, and who opposes them will depend on which one gets elected or re-elected. If Obama gets re-elected, suddenly all the so-called anti-war Democrats will discover how much they like the idea of a war with Iran, and what rational mature responsible realists they are for supporting it. If Romney gets elected, Republicans will once more find themselves comfortable with the erosion of civil liberties and privacy.

Partisans of either party don't care about principles or whether any given policy or action is right or wrong, they care about whether it's their guy doing it, or the guy to whom they're opposed.

Progurt wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:People Romney=Obama, They are just puppets, with the same puppet masters. What they say is completely different but what they will do is exactly the same.

^This.

Bush was a lunatic cowboy. McCain was a senile crazy old man with a wacko for a running mate.

Romney is Obama is Romney is Obama. You think Romney could have gotten elected governor of a state as liberal as Massachusetts if he wasn't a mealy-mouthed centrist? We're not talking the former governor of Texas here, a psychopath who joked about killing people, we're talking about the bland centrist rich guy who joked about firing people.

Romney, Obama, same diff. They're both going to push for expansions of corporate and state power, and who opposes them will depend on which one gets elected or re-elected. If Obama gets re-elected, suddenly all the so-called anti-war Democrats will discover how much they like the idea of a war with Iran, and what rational mature responsible realists they are for supporting it. If Romney gets elected, Republicans will once more find themselves comfortable with the erosion of civil liberties and privacy.

Partisans of either party don't care about principles or whether any given policy or action is right or wrong, they care about whether it's their guy doing it, or the guy to whom they're opposed.

I think you are reading liberals and dems wrong when it comes to war, the only dems that think the wars in the mid. east and Afghanistan are good are the ones that voted for it under the bush adm. most people that voted for Obama that are pissed at him now feel cheated because he led us to believe he would end the wars immediately. I don't think there is much support for a war with Iran.

eelj wrote:I think you are reading liberals and dems wrong when it comes to war, the only dems that think the wars in the mid. east and Afghanistan are good are the ones that voted for it under the bush adm. most people that voted for Obama that are pissed at him now feel cheated because he led us to believe he would end the wars immediately. I don't think there is much support for a war with Iran.

I've heard different from so-called liberals on other sites as recently as today. I had somebody, a die-hard Obama supporter, tell me we're at war with Pakistan because they, along with Saudi Arabia, attacked us on 9/11.

Right now there's not much support for a war with Iran, but I bet you'd see that change, especially given majority support among self-declared Democrats and liberals for the drone wars.

Progurt wrote:

eelj wrote:I think you are reading liberals and dems wrong when it comes to war, the only dems that think the wars in the mid. east and Afghanistan are good are the ones that voted for it under the bush adm. most people that voted for Obama that are pissed at him now feel cheated because he led us to believe he would end the wars immediately. I don't think there is much support for a war with Iran.

I've heard different from so-called liberals on other sites as recently as today. I had somebody, a die-hard Obama supporter, tell me we're at war with Pakistan because they, along with Saudi Arabia, attacked us on 9/11.

Right now there's not much support for a war with Iran, but I bet you'd see that change, especially given majority support among self-declared Democrats and liberals for the drone wars.

This. GO TEAM DEMOCRAT! right? Fankly the LGC has it's share of mindless Team blues but they are few and far between, luckily most of us here actually think. Elsewhere not so much.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Every time you guys trot out the Romney and Obama are the same bit, you're telling me that I and people like me are of zero consequence in your universe.

I don't even have the energy to tell you yet again just how deeply fucked up I think that is.

I'm down to holding back the screaming fuck yous at this point.

GuitarsandGuns wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:So you want a repeat of the Bush win in 2000?

Are you asking me?

More at Professor Unger.

Fukshot wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Every time you guys trot out the Romney and Obama are the same bit, you're telling me that I and people like me are of zero consequence in your universe.

I don't even have the energy to tell you yet again just how deeply fucked up I think that is.

I'm down to holding back the screaming fuck yous at this point.

It's not that you don't matter fuckshot, it's that romney will do the exact same thing Obama is going to do, even on this issue, what romeny says now is completely independent of what he will do. Just as what Obama will do is completely independent of what he is saying. And they will do exactly the same because their puppet masters are the same. They will just speak differently because they have different bases. what will make a difference is how large of a fuss the centrists make about it, and how many of the rich donors support it. That is where you want to look for change, not whether Obama or Romney wins.

And i absolutely guarantee you, romney would have made nearly the same statement as obama after the carolina vote if he was president now.

Romney was governor of Massachusetts when gay marriage was legalized there in 2004. He fought it, while also saying he supported "rights" for homosexuals, just not "those rights", but is that any different from Obama's long-time opposition (until his recent "evolution") to gay marriage?

Yeah, candidate Romney is acting like he hates gays, because that's what his base wants, just like how candidate Obama acted like he hated war. But if Romney became president, he'd be following the nationally popular position on homosexuality, whatever that position is. And following the polling shows that there is solid majority support now for gay marriage and for equal rights for homosexuals.

I'm not saying homosexuals don't matter, I'm saying that, for gay rights specifically, based off of past actions in office by both Obama and Romney, there would not be a big difference between the two.

2008 Obama wrote:"I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

2012 Romney wrote:"As fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate. So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

2012 Romney wrote:"As you know, I don't discriminate," Romney said. "And in the appointments that I made -- when I was governor of Massachusetts, a member of my cabinet was gay. I appointed people to the bench, regardless of their sexual orientation. Made it very clear that, in my view, we should not discriminate in hiring policies, in legal policies.

"At the same time, from the very beginning, in 1994, I said to the gay community, 'I do not favor same-sex marriage,'" Romney added. "I oppose same-sex marriage. And that has been my, my view. But, but if, if people are looking for someone who -- who will discriminate against gays or will in any way -- try and suggest that people, that, that have different sexual orientation don't have full rights in this country, they won't find that in me."

There's really just not that big a difference. If this was Bush vs Obama, then yes, there'd be a pretty big difference on the specific issue of gay rights. But it isn't, it's Romney vs Obama. Both of them have positions that will alter based on public opinion.

Progurt wrote:There's really just not that big a difference. If this was Bush vs Obama, then yes, there'd be a pretty big difference on the specific issue of gay rights. But it isn't, it's Romney vs Obama. Both of them have positions that will alter based on public opinion.

Oh! You mean the men's personal opinions aren't what we're voting on? It's what they will do to appeal to their perceived constituencies? Oh my mistake. There's definitely no difference there. Neither of them are pandering to people who would put my friends and family in camps. You're right. I'll just shut my stupid trap now.

gendoikari87 wrote:And i absolutely guarantee you, romney would have made nearly the same statement as obama after the carolina vote if he was president now.

And i absolutely guarantee you, you are just making this up as your fingers wildly stab at keys stringing nouns verbs and adjectives together. Your sentence I have quoted is in dramatic conflict with observable reality.

Tough shit, I will work for and try to persuade all i can to vote for Obama's re-election. No complicated reason, no digging up of history, no pretense about this be the right or correct or moral or whatever word you wish to insert, thing to do. I believe as old as i am that while all that has been said may be true, I still will work for President Obama's re-election. Ya'll don't like it? Go fuck yourselves, in a good way of course!

paul

we can engage in intelligent discourse on the subject and leave the 'fuck yous' out of it...even in jest, or we can degenerate.

I would encourage the former.

Fukshot wrote:

Progurt wrote:There's really just not that big a difference. If this was Bush vs Obama, then yes, there'd be a pretty big difference on the specific issue of gay rights. But it isn't, it's Romney vs Obama. Both of them have positions that will alter based on public opinion.

Oh! You mean the men's personal opinions aren't what we're voting on? It's what they will do to appeal to their perceived constituencies? Oh my mistake. There's definitely no difference there. Neither of them are pandering to people who would put my friends and family in camps. You're right. I'll just shut my stupid trap now.

oh one is definitely pandering, but neither will actually do it. In fact even if romney is elected, guess what, you're going to get gay marriage in the next ten years. Might even be pushed through by Romney, as the court of public opinion is now clearly in favor. Don't let your fear cloud your judgement.

Don't forget Obama's administration FOUGHT the repeal of DADT. His ACTIONS are counter gay rights. What has romney done? anything as bad as fighting the most important advance in civil rights in the past decade?

Yeah, not interested in being lectured to about how it's in my best interests to elect Romney.

MA is better off with Patrick, the US is better off with Obama, no matter how disappointing either of them is. We are better off with Obama than we would have been with Palin, and certainly than we were with Bush. Even with the patriot act renewal and the NDAA.

No amount of intellectual posturing changes that. We'd be talking aout how horrible it is that McCain/Palin are killing innocent civilians AND how it's sad that they signed theocracy into law.

Inquisitor wrote:Yeah, not interested in being lectured to about how it's in my best interests to elect Romney.

MA is better off with Patrick, the US is better off with Obama, no matter how disappointing either of them is. We are better off with Obama than we would have been with Palin, and certainly than we were with Bush. Even with the patriot act renewal and the NDAA.

No amount of intellectual posturing changes that. We'd be talking aout how horrible it is that McCain/Palin are killing innocent civilians AND how it's sad that they signed theocracy into law.

Problem is both options are a sinking ship (BTW McCain would not be signing theocracy into law, palin on the other hand might have). Even if we assume one is sinking slower, the end destination is not to be desired.