MERGED: The Politics Thread

[Siria]

I have almost single-handedly taken on dozens of Left Wing believers in this thread for the past several years without ever losing it.  Most of them have been civil.  Oh yes, there was the occasional nut case such as the MunchingWolfManJack whose fuse is even shorter than yours. 

...Do you... Honestly think... that anyone... has ever... found your illegally-appropriated copypasta convincing... in any way?

Do you actually think that anyone besides you and maybe Q_BE has considered you to have "won" even a single argument here?

Are you just being a troll? Or are you just incredibly naive?

[gOOber]

The other party, the Republicans, say they know how to run the government like a business, decrease our debt and prevent us from becoming a third world country

This calls for.....

[pedonbio]

Ha! I remember when there was some buzz among Republicans about changing the constitution so he could run for president... Boy, that died fast!

[onion_writer]

All due respect to the moderators, but I am disgusted that all political discussion has been merged into one thread. I imagine that my friends with opposing political views, in once what was the Right Wing Tavern, agree. There should be room for seperate homes of thought here. It's just electrons, and no one's harmed by it.

We had what, maybe four poltical threads? That's hardly anything. Some very few members cross-posted. They should have been temporarily banned for that, the same as they would have been for posting images across threads.

Instead, the most interesting posts here have now all been jumbled. Is this a new board rule? That any political question or commentary must be posted only here?

I don't disagree with the moderators' decision, but I do think that we're now all paying the price for past moderator laxity. What could have been myriad interesting viewpoints in several threads are now all stewing together, blandly.

To be blunt, why screw us all for a few members' (or one member's) multiple cuts and pastes?

[Palomine]

All due respect to the moderators, but I am disgusted that all political discussion has been merged into one thread. I imagine that my friends with opposing political views, in once what was the Right Wing Tavern, agree. There should be room for seperate homes of thought here. It's just electrons, and no one's harmed by it.

We had what, maybe four poltical threads? That's hardly anything. Some very few members cross-posted. They should have been temporarily banned for that, the same as they would have been for posting images across threads.

Instead, the most interesting posts here have now all been jumbled. Is this a new board rule? That any political question or commentary must be posted only here?

I don't disagree with the moderators' decision, but I do think that we're now all paying the price for past moderator laxity. What could have been myriad interesting viewpoints in several threads are now all stewing together, blandly.

To be blunt, why screw us all for a few members' (or one member's) multiple cuts and pastes?

This is the BEA Forum, not the Political Roundtable Forum. It's primary mission is to foster community and communication re: BB and BE topics. The BEA Owner established an Off Topic sub-forum as a courtesy to users to provide a place for non-BB/BE topics. However, when activity within the Off Topic forum begins to negatively impact the participation of users in the REST of the forum, it becomes a problem.

Though the three threads may have started off with different subjects, over time they degenerated into similar and often redundant conversations... thus, they were merged JUST as we commonly do with duplicate ON-topic threads in the General Forum. When the threads were merged, the original subjects on each post were preserved, so if anyone really wanted to pore through 90+ pages to follow one particular discussion they can (IMO, a colonoscopy sans anesthesia sounds like a more pleasant way to pass the time, but each to his or her own ).

No one's being 'screwed' ...inevitably, ANY (aka EVERY) change will meet with someone's approval (in this case, the merge itself was suggested by a user) and someone else's disapproval... you not liking the merge does NOT equate you being 'screwed' by any stretch of the imagination. I suggest that if you're looking for a place where numerous simultaneous conversations covering each and every nuance of political thought are available, there are plenty of other forums online for that.

To clarify a couple of misconceptions: this merge was not done solely because of the actions of any single user... user(s) who's record of behavior in the forums has become an issue have been warned and that's their concern, not anyone else's. Also, there's been no decree that all future posts about political matters must be limited to this thread... however, if history repeats itself and things get out of hand again (to the point where it impacts the rest of the site) we'd probably have to consider putting an end to all such discussion here entirely.

Again: this is the BEA, and when action in Off Topic starts causing long-time users to reduce their participation, we do what's necessary to make sure the dog wags the tail and not the other way around.

Thanks.

[Real]

i see how it makes sense, each one of them became conservatives vs liberals with no real focus on the subject at hand.

especially jj now determined to be a presence pasting the same posts in different threads, no real need to fill ot with different threads to say the same thing..

[3deroticer]

All due respect to the moderators, but I am disgusted that all political discussion has been merged into one thread. I imagine that my friends with opposing political views, in once what was the Right Wing Tavern, agree. There should be room for seperate homes of thought here. It's just electrons, and no one's harmed by it.

We had what, maybe four poltical threads? That's hardly anything. Some very few members cross-posted. They should have been temporarily banned for that, the same as they would have been for posting images across threads.

Instead, the most interesting posts here have now all been jumbled. Is this a new board rule? That any political question or commentary must be posted only here?

I don't disagree with the moderators' decision, but I do think that we're now all paying the price for past moderator laxity. What could have been myriad interesting viewpoints in several threads are now all stewing together, blandly.

To be blunt, why screw us all for a few members' (or one member's) multiple cuts and pastes?

I have enjoy reading your thoughts, and my opinion one of the brilliant writer in here, but I can't make out what happen or why it happen or how having your own thoughts become harmful to the site. If you figure it out let me know.

I find it Ironic that Keith Olberman had face similar situation of where he has to get boss's approval of supporting a candidate, while suspending his constitutional rights. We now have to get moderator approval for posting opposing thoughts. I don't see how having a political thread is worthwhile with those restriction. If these political thread is an issue then do what you have to do, but it would be better to do it across the board and not discriminate a single user for his opinion.

[onion_writer]

Again: this is the BEA, and when action in Off Topic starts causing long-time users to reduce their participation, we do what's necessary to make sure the dog wags the tail and not the other way around.

This merging has sharply curtailed my own participation across the entire board. Anyone else?

I assume that others, on the other hand, personally reported to the mods (it doesn't otherwise appear in any threads) that they would not participate so long as there were so many political threads. I doubt this, but I take your word for it. I appreciate the owner's and mods' hard work, but -- don't like it? Don't click on it.

Yes, this is the BEA. And no, it's more than Breast Expansion. Here we all discuss movies, television, personal concerns -- even real estate and investments -- all sorts of topics which we all enjoy reading and responding to. I like the BEA best when it is a real community dealing with all aspects of life -- breasts before anything else, of course, but also political parties, the recession and all vitally important aspects of political America today.

I am just dim, perhaps, in that I fail to see how a BEA thread for conservatives, another for liberals, and other threads for various political issues might possibly curtail participation. If anything, I think it would excite participation.

By way of example, we could as easily collapse all large breast posts into a single thread. This is about organization and retrieval of information. For political comments and discussion, it is now far, far more difficult.

[SamV]

Perhaps there is little to be said at the current time after the elections as we now have a lame duck Congress and I believe it is currentLEE in recess until after Thanksgiving.

Combine that with the Prez on a far east tour so that even the White House seems to be in a holding pattern until every one returns to Washington after the big feast. 

When that happens things political may start heating up again, as everyone gets in a fight over the Bush era tax cuts and other business.

As for me the only I've got of any interest is some interviews on the PBS Newshour and elsewhere that shows how idiotic the neophyte congressmen and senator elects are. The Utah guy says he thinks there should be as much as a 40% across the board spending cut in order to balance the Fed Budget. And that earmarks are now a thing of the past! 

(The only way he'll ever get anyone else to go along with his first idea is by doing some serious horse trading - and that means a lot of tit-for-tat, like earmarks in the legislation to get it passed. )

----
OH, and just for the record - I'm not enamored with this mishmash in the thread now either.
But over time I imagine it will probabLEE straighten itself out.
Besides PAL never said new political off-topic threads can't be started.

[Palomine]

This merging has sharply curtailed my own participation across the entire board. Anyone else?

I assume that others, on the other hand, personally reported to the mods (it doesn't otherwise appear in any threads) that they would not participate so long as there were so many political threads. I doubt this, but I take your word for it. I appreciate the owner's and mods' hard work, but -- don't like it? Don't click on it.

Yes, this is the BEA. And no, it's more than Breast Expansion. Here we all discuss movies, television, personal concerns -- even real estate and investments -- all sorts of topics which we all enjoy reading and responding to. I like the BEA best when it is a real community dealing with all aspects of life -- breasts before anything else, of course, but also political parties, the recession and all vitally important aspects of political America today.

I am just dim, perhaps, in that I fail to see how a BEA thread for conservatives, another for liberals, and other threads for various political issues might possibly curtail participation. If anything, I think it would excite participation.

By way of example, we could as easily collapse all large breast posts into a single thread. This is about organization and retrieval of information. For political comments and discussion, it is now far, far more difficult.

I've already explained this below and am not going to repeat it all again or debate it endlessly... feel free to re-read my 6PM reply to you yesterday if you're unclear about it. Your objection to the merge is noted and I again suggest that you consider another forum for the sort of non-BB/BE conversations you seem to be interested in.

[rtpoe]

Speaking of 'earmarks' (and the related pork-barrel projects), have you noticed that practically all Congressmen are against them - except when the money goes to their home district?

It's something they cannot give up. Would you re-elect someone who *didn't* bring home the Federal bacon?

Best to openly admit that every Congressman and every district gets a little piece of the pie, and move on.

Won't happen, though...

[onion_writer]

I've already explained this below and am not going to repeat it all again or debate it endlessly... feel free to re-read my 6PM reply to you yesterday if you're unclear about it. Your objection to the merge is noted and I again suggest that you consider another forum for the sort of non-BB/BE conversations you seem to be interested in.

Thanks for your condescending advice. And no, you did not explain this "below"  (I assume you mean "above"), and you still have not explained it. S'fine; the mods work hard and are all volunteers. Still, you have made me feel entirely unwelcome here. I assume that at least a few others feel the same way. I am going to curtail my involvement with this board even more sharply. Way to promote the BEA.

[3deroticer]

This is "JJ"

[TheZookie007]

Q: "How do you get yourself in these pickles?"
A: We don't -- you rich fat cats pushed us here.

See:

Bill Moyers: "Welcome to the Plutocracy!" (If you don't want to slog through that long speech, here is the 3 minute version.)

Rachel Maddow: "Compromise Between Republicans & Democrats"

[Palomine]

Thanks for your condescending advice. And no, you did not explain this "below"  (I assume you mean "above"), and you still have not explained it. S'fine; the mods work hard and are all volunteers. Still, you have made me feel entirely unwelcome here. I assume that at least a few others feel the same way. I am going to curtail my involvement with this board even more sharply. Way to promote the BEA.

No, I meant below... I meant exactly what I said in all respects.

You're peeved? Fine. Despite your implication to the contrary, you speak only for yourself. Curtail your 'involvement' as you see fit... over the course of more than a decade before you showed up, we've learned it's impossible to please all of the people all of the time and in this particular case, you're displeased. I've explained the Owner's priorities and how they impact the Off Topic Forum. If you don't like it, no one here but you is going to lose any sleep over the fact.

[onion_writer]

No, I meant below... I meant exactly what I said in all respects.

You're peeved? Fine. Despite your implication to the contrary, you speak only for yourself. Curtail your 'involvement' as you see fit... over the course of more than a decade before you showed up, we've learned it's impossible to please all of the people all of the time and in this particular case, you're displeased. I've explained the Owner's priorities and how they impact the Off Topic Forum. If you don't like it, no one here but you is going to lose any sleep over the fact.

I am so angry that there are no words for it.

Mod edit: in that case, you really need to take a breath and get yourself some perspective. This is a porn site/community and you've been given the opportunity to participate here by our host, the BEA Owner... for which you pay nothing by the way. The BEA exists primarily to serve the BB and BE interests of users, not to foster discussions and flame wars about politics. If you actually are "so angry" that there 'are no words for it" then you clearly don't understand the point of the BEA or you seem to think it owes you something it most certainly does not. Other forums have been known to simply shut down their Off-Topic sections permanently when they became more trouble than they're worth... that's not something we're considering here yet, but we surely will step in when things begin to get out of hand.

In light of that, I'm going to lock this thread temporarily so you don't go do something you'll regret. It'll be unlocked again in 24 hours.

Added Thursday: OK, the thread's unlocked again. All of us (myself included) took advantage of the day off to catch our collective breath and the political kibitzing can now resume.

[gOOber]

 

[DruulEmpire]

Y'know, that's ONE cartoon on this thread I don't mind so much.  Both parties are looking seriously coopted by the financiers.

[3deroticer]

In Oregon we had a tough campaign that was 12,000 vote lead for the returning Governor Kitzhaber against Chris Dudley, a basketball pro player with very little known about him. Refuse to debate openly with and wont grant interview to anyone but rely on heavily commercial soundbites and billboard, and yet came closest to winning the governorship with corporate backing. To me that was scary of how anyone could win by having a corporate backing of 7 to one against a well known opponent.

The interesting things was that the platform for Chris was "the comeback candidate" even though he never ran, and he said he would bring the state back to its best days in better education and productivity, and they were the times when John Kizthaber ran it.

[pedonbio]

gOOber, that cartoon has so much truth in it that it hurts.

I spend way too much time futzing about politics, and most of my social life consists of political events these days, and it's easy to lose sight of how little room there is to navigate in the political "reality" that we have created for ourselves. I was thinking about that the other day, reflecting on the recent health insurance reform bill congress passed this year. If we go back a year, to the gearing-up for the fight, there were two things I was pretty sure about: 1) that great financial savings would result from government negotiation regarding pharmaceuticals; and 2) that there would be a public option.

I was totally disoriented when I learned that the first item had been given away by agreement between the senate and the president without a fight of any kind. Poof! WTF?

Then there was the "fight" over the public option. Remember that? The Republicans said, "We really, really don't want that." Joe Lieberman nearly ripped his shirt, taking the public option off the table. 

[3deroticer]

That is actually my new name for those Democrats, as I lovingly refer them as "off the table Democrats"
Impeachment off the table
Public Option off the table
Net Neutrality off the table
Habeus Corpus off the table

and so forth!

What makes them that much different from Republican?

We still got kick in the teeth with this mid-term election, and I think it's because we had too many "off the table" democrats!

[SamV]

Might I suggest for your reading pleasure: Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America

IMO it is an eye opening treatise on why gOOb's cartoon is possibLEE more prophetic than one might think.

And while that panel only shows Dems and Repubs, the Tea Party people have been unknowingLEE roped in also to provide the same obstruction in getting the America car to go anyway except where the wealthiest monied interests want it to go (or not go).           

[pedonbio]

One problem is that we rarely use our strongest weapon--Laughter. O am studying the link below for ways to neutralize the bad guys:

http://www.neatorama.com/2007/09/03/clowns-kicked-kkk-asses/

[gOOber]

I'm just curious where it will end. How far will Americans yield their liberty in exchange for safety. Will we really ever get to a point where they literally stick a finger up your ass and in your cooch to see if you're hiding anything? Will we still willingly submit to this further intrusion and continue to mock those who don't want to be anally penetrated just to get on an airplane? I think it's time to admit that the America we all learned about in history class is long dead, might never have actually existed, and is at best an animated corpse of a free country.

[DruulEmpire]

This thread began (   ) with a rather remarkable post by gOOber back in September 2008, and here's another one.  My only disagreement is that this would belong exclusively in a so-called Politics Thread.  It would be just as appropriate in a Corporate Thread or a Legal Thread.  When some bright fellow chirps up "Let's implant GPS chips in our kids so we can always keep track of them," I get nervous.  My worry is that society as a whole has gone this way.  Some people here are good and proper family folk (I am not  ) trying to raise at least one ch1ld, and yet we can't even spell "ch1ld" without inserting a numeral.  I can appreciate that someone had to make a decision, but it was the wrong decision, an indecision, the kind of decision made more for some bureaucratic track record, to be able to declare "Hey, I made that important decision," than to actually do anything about dissuading, shall we say, youth overlove in real life.  The trouble being, I don't know who's left to allow gOOb to board a plane unharassed.  Certainly the law and the lawyers are not liable to back down.  Maybe, maybe, the ACLU can fight it.  Beyond that, I don't know.  People dare not accept the responsibility that comes with the freedom anymore.  If one jet blows up because some idiot had a bomb up his rectum, that'll be the end of it ("end," get it, get it?), and too many people don't want to risk that.  The trouble being, the corporations aren't necessarily going to be the champions of liberty either, because they want their passengers safe and their planes unexploded.  (They're weird that way: kill eleven oil workers out in the Gulf, but humiliate all airplane passengers.)  Someone has to be willing to say "It's a dangerous world, but in all of that privacy still reigns supreme."  I have no idea who that could be.

[pedonbio]

I'm just curious where it will end. How far will Americans yield their liberty in exchange for safety.

gOOb and Druul, both, I don't know. All I know is that it has already gone much, much further than ever thought it would. In 2001 we had a nasty incident; so literally a week later the Attorney General pulls out of his pocket something he calls "the patriot act" and the senate passes it with a single dissenting vote. The senator who cast that vote is subsequently killed in a plane crash. I had expected considerable opposition, since the act did nothing to prevent terrorism, and did plenty to prevent citizens from participating in government. There was, effectively, no opposition.

And, Druul, you wonder who will do it? That's one reason the income divergence is so important. A year or so ago I had lunch with an old friend from law school who had gone to work for an investment bank back in the 1970s. I mentioned going to the airport a couple hours early to get my metal detected. He explained one of the perks of his firm: Twice a week the firm jet makes coast-to-coast flights. No checks, no scans; just pack and go.

[3deroticer]

I was thinking about that! We had a restore sanity rally and not much in the news afterward, like it never happen, but a huge concern about how detrimental to Jon's career if he does it. The media was more afraid beforehand than after ward, and it didn't make a dent other than Keith Olberman getting fired shortly after he says he would get rid of the worst person in the world segment. I'm just blabbing .... I don't think any gathering or rally of the people could exist without it getting run over by the corporate machine adding it final touches and exposure. It just goes to show how much of a third branch of govt the media is. Without it, we are back to yellow journalism of the 1920. I think we are there already because the halls of congress and the supreme Justice lost the voice of the people, and really hang onto the voice of their owners, and it aint us. We now have Justice lobbying for their party, when they sworn in to not ever do that. All this seem so like a bad sci-fi movie unfolding in real time.

[TheZookie007]

A year or so ago I had lunch with an old friend from law school who had gone to work for an investment bank back in the 1970s. I mentioned going to the airport a couple hours early to get my metal detected. He explained one of the perks of his firm: Twice a week the firm jet makes coast-to-coast flights. No checks, no scans; just pack and go.

That's a huge part of the problem right there. Does the head of the TSA fly commercial? Does the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security (ugh, that name! I don't have a "homeland", I have a country, thankyouverymuch. What is this, 1930s-era Germany?) fly commercial? You bet your sweet ass they don't. Hence, these violations of our privacy will not affect them AT ALL. Out of sight, out of mind.

[TheZookie007]

The media was more afraid beforehand than after ward, and it didn't make a dent other than Keith Olberman getting fired shortly after he says he would get rid of the worst person in the world segment.

He wasn't fired over that; he was suspended for like three days because he hadn't earlier disclosed to his bosses at MSNBC that he donated money to a couple of political campaigns. Not only that, but he has since reinstated the Worst Persons in the World segment.

[TheZookie007]

Lest ye forget...


Foreign Policy: "Delusion Points"
Don't fall for the nostalgia -- George W. Bush's foreign policy really was that bad.

Two years into Barack Obama's presidency, it has become a cliché to observe that the newish president, who spent his 2008 campaign promising a U-turn from his deeply unpopular predecessor's activities abroad, has ended up with a foreign policy that looks surprising like George W. Bush's. The United States has more troops in Afghanistan than it did at the end of the Bush years, Guantánamo is still open, efforts to engage Iran have failed, and while American soldiers may have begun pulling back from Iraq, they've left plenty of Western defense contractors in their wake.

In anticipation of tomorrow's release of Bush's memoir, Decision Points, this line of thinking is reinforcing one of the Beltway press corps' favorite rituals: the "was he really that bad?" nostalgia for a president that the same reporters and analysts were happily pummeling only two years ago.

Don't believe a word of it. George W. Bush's presidency really was that bad -- and the fact that Obama has largely followed the same course is less a measure of Bush's wisdom than a reminder of the depth of the hole he dug his country into, as well as the institutionalized groupthink that dominates the U.S. foreign-policy establishment....

The United States would have been far better off had George W. Bush never decided to enter politics and instead had spent the last two decades running a baseball team. The former president wasn't particularly good at that job either, but failure there would have had far fewer consequences for America and for the world. Obama's efforts to clean up Bush's legacy may have been disappointing so far, but that's no reason to feel nostalgic for the man who created all these messes in the first place.

   

[TheZookie007]

In other news: the hammer falls on the man they once nicknamed "the Hammer".

Crooks and Liars: "The Bugman gets His! Tom Delay Convicted of Money Laundering"

And this Philly rapper asks a very pertinent musical question:

YouTube: "What if the Tea Party was black?"

[TheZookie007]

Business Insider: "15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth and Inequality in America", which includes:

"Real average earnings have not increased in 50 years."

"Half of America owns only 2.5% of country's wealth. The top 1% owns a third of it."

"America's income spread is nearly twice the OECD average."

"If you aren't in the top 1% of America's earners, you're pretty much screwed."

[rtpoe]

Welcome to the Banana Republic of America....

[pedonbio]

Welcome to the Banana Republic of America....

[SwitcherX]

The best statesman of our era