"Climate change is not a hoax."
Forget all the policy, and the economics, and everything else: those are details. At the core of everything is process; details are merely a product of process. Science, for example, is a process for generating facts/details; theology, ideology, and pulling things out of your ass are other processes.
And in that one statement, in the mere fact that Obama had to even issue the statement, it is revealed in stark clarity that one political party chooses science as a process, and one does not.
Regardless of your position on any other issue, this single fact alone compels rational voters to one and only one choice.
(I feel compelled by fairness to point out that this did not use to be true; that the Republican party has a long tradition of hard-nosed rationality while the Democrats were into moonbeams and unicorns; but things have changed.)
Romney's position on climate change:
ReplyDeleteI am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences....
I don't want to suggest that Romney is not a flip-flopping, tell you what you want to hear, douche nozzle. He is. What he isn't is totally retarded either. Just because Obama feels compelled to say "Climate change is not a hoax." , should not make you think his competition thinks it is. Let them speak for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI say that though I am certain you can find 100s of pieces of film where Romney says something retarded about climate. That is because he is trying to get votes from retards. It sucks for Reps because the primary process really pushes them toward candidates who will say the STUPIDIST shit. That doesn't mean they actually believe it. They are just lying for votes. You know, like Obama and that whole Guantanamo thing...
Many people who may vote for Romney will think absurd things. Trust me, this is true of all voters for all candidates.
It's not about Romney; it's about the party.
ReplyDeleteRomney, regardless of his personal position, will be forced to adopt policies that match his rhetoric, his party platform, and his base. Yes there is some wiggle room but not that much; history shows that the platforms presidents run on are generally the platforms they rule on.
Obama is not to blame for Guantanamo, btw; the Republicans blocked his attempt to close it by refusing to allocate funds to relocate the prisoners (or do anything with them other than Guantanamo). Again we see a sheer fabrication being passed off by Republicans as a fact.
Yes, liberals often believe in idiotic things like astrology; but those beliefs have not influenced the party platform or become political rallying points.
There is no equivalence here; one side are the typical numnuts, and the other side is stark raving mad.
Do you really think that Obama is powerless to provide due process to those people?
ReplyDeleteHe isn't. It's just not politically expedient so he demurs.
I suppose you have a fantastic apology for his extra judicial executions of Americans as well. Well, lets hear it...
"Powerless" and "politically expedient" are kind of the same thing. Obama doesn't fight the Security State for the same reason he doesn't fight the Drug War. He's already got enough going on.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, if I were to be concerned about the state of law, I would be far more concerned about millions of people locked up for no rational reason before I would be concerned about a few extra-judicial executions.
America has been drifting into fascism for years. You can't expect Obama to single-handedly stand in the way. Not when he's also trying to save the economy, end two wars, preserve the social welfare state, combat global warming, and challenge racism. How much should one man have to do?
Also, I don't think he cares that much. Obama is a centrist and a lawyer, not a leftist or an idealist. Civil liberties aren't on the top of his personal list. But he's still better than the alternative.
One does not have to view Obama as perfect on these issues; just as a step in the right direction. It took us 30 years to walk this far, we aren't going to turn it around in one or two elections.
I don't think of him even as a centrist. I see him as purely a pragmatist. I cannot identify any ideology in his policies (centrist, left, or right). He just seems to do whatever feels right when it comes up.
ReplyDeleteWhat is telling is that when asked if he'd like to order the execution of assumed criminals without a trial he said yes. That means that all future presidents can do it also and the only people likely to complain will be muted by the fact that "their" guy did it first. No one forced his hand here, he just did it cause those people "needed killing". Sure, he's even handed but the next guy won't be and then what? He needs to be better than that.
The president has nothing to do with or has any say in state laws, state prisons, and/or enforcement (and you know it). I'm the first to complain about our prison society. I don't believe in punishment at all. I think all we should do is attempt to adjust behavior.
I realize that, given the current standards of Voodoo economics, simply adhering to reality does not look like an ideology. But it is. :D The problem is that Obama's ideology is so ordinary. Political science defines a State as a bank with an army; and a modern State as a bank, army, and insurance company. Obama's ideology is that he approves of the existence of a modern State; and Romney's is that he does not.
ReplyDeleteI am not so sure Obama had a free choice on the matter. I hesitate to derive character or even desire from policy; that's like deriving the documentation from the code. There are a lot of competing forces, all of them political, that influence decisions at this level.
Which is why voting matters so much. If Obama had a more Progressive Congress, the political forces influencing these kinds of decisions would push the other way.