Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Kuya]

In America: A Narrative History, we get all the details of Watergate and of Nixon's abuse of power (as we should), but not a word about FDR as the pioneer of such activity. When the Paulist radio station of poor Fr. James Gillis in Chicago criticized FDR' s court-packing scheme, the FCC took its license away. As early as 1935, FDR requested that the FBI initiate a series of investigations into a variety of right-wing organizations, and later in the decade secretly sought proof (which, of course, never came) that prominent members of the America First Committee were receiving Nazi money. America Firsters were routinely smeared as Nazis and traitors. Our authors provide us with plenty of one-sided coverage of Joe McCarthy, but nothing about any of this.

Naturally, our authors assure us that FDR's massive spending projects provided jobs and economic stimulus. It would probably be too much to expect a typical historian to appreciate Frédéric Bastiat' s point about opportunity cost from his famous essay, "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen." At the very least, though, it cannot be unreasonable to expect some acknowledgment of the considerable amount of scholarship that over the past several decades has explored the peculiar distribution of FDR's spending. The corruption with which FDR' s public-works projects were infested is fairly well-established- the rather curious preponderance of Works Progress Administration (WPA) projects in Western states where FDR's electoral margin had been thin in 1932, the intimidation of WPA workers into voting Democratic, and the like. Naturally, we get not a word about any of that.

I will concede that you don't need a supermajority to do any of that, you'll just hear about it less if there is one. With enough members of the opposing party, purely out of self interest, they'll almost always try to blow the whistle on eachother and kick up a stink because what self respecting partisan wouldn't try to screw over the opposition? Unless the parties decide to work together on something that is unfavourable for most people, which is nothing new.

Either way, trying to contend that a single party controlling all 3 of a republican government's branches is a good thing is ill. A political party ins't composed of members loyal to their philosophies; given enough time to consolidate power they will almost always corrupt to do what's necessary to keep power. If the American people decide to give full power to the Democrats then that's their decision, but don't go acting like doing that is something prudent to do. Especially when the Democrats aren't very far off from the Republicans, you'll hardly ever hear them talk about any issue beyond the same 5 or 6 that they use to get elected.

You see it as the good guys beating the bad guys, and i see it as the mediocre demagogues beating the even more mediocre demagogues and still ignoring important issues which won't get any attention unless some grassroots movement does something.

[Beckwin]

And what's going to give rise to an opposing grassroots movement: a GOP that can still cling to obstinacy thanks to people like Stevens and Dole or a crushed neocon GOP from which Paulites/Goldwaterites/intellectuals/people not stuck in the 1500s can rise up and take control for a Clinton/Truman era turnaround in Congress? Not to mention it's likely we'll see stronger Green showings after 8 years of largely democratic control (sup Nader 2k).

No, the Democrats aren't perfect. Neither were Roosevelt's democrats. but my god, the current GOP is dogshit and needs to go, and I still find your fears of a dem supermajority to be rather irrational. Clinton had a couple years of it and we didn't implode, and despite FDR's exertion of executive power, he generally acted in the better interests of the country.

But about FDR, I hope you do realize that the Nazis did have backers in American business and finance (Prescott Bush among them!), and a coup was planned on FDR by business elites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Not to say that completely excuses his FBI inquiries and strongarming the FCC, but you need to take in the perspective.

[Beckwin]

but really, I just don't see how you can say all this stuff about a party- they've warped the American dream/promise/etc to promote loathing of their fellows and worship of their financial superiors, infringed upon civil liberties, practiced torture, lied to the public, compromised the integrity of the justice department, cow-towed to religious conservatism, perpetuate bigotry against homo/bisexuals, etc.- but then say "oh, well they should still have considerable power".

Maybe if you'd air the most substantial grievances you have about the democratic party and current platform (if you don't see any changes in the coming democratic party I think you need to reexamine what this election has done/proven) I'd be more sympathetic to your argument, but frankly you just haven't done so.

[Plow]

Kinda but not really, she was stumping at some small little town, and she said that was real americans and real america or something like that. Not a big deal, but she added words like patriotic and god-loving which kinda aggravated everyone else. It's cool to like small town america, but not cool to imply that only small town america can be patriotic and god-loving.

Well, you have to remember that small town America consists primarily of inbred dipshits that think they're better than the rest of the world, and the only effective way to pander to them is to tell them how much better their beliefs and ideals are than anybody else's.

[Kuya]

There is hardly much of an option seeing as how both the Republicans and Democrats have done their best to keep any third party candidate out of any debate or anything even approaching a fair discussion. Both parties are simply mired with corporate interests, and perhaps i would love another party to counter balance the democrats if it weren't for the fact that there is no other party to counter balance them with. Neither party wants to share power with another party, and they sure as hell won't allow it.

The Democrats can at best be described as schizophrenic, they don't seem to know where to stand on the right to marry, on wars, on even the environment with at times even defending "clean carbon". They are a party of spineless dolts who can't keep a consistent position. I have hardly any faith that the Democrats are immune enough to corporate interests to provide for a cohesive plan to lower tensions in the Middle East, but Democrats are just as deluded in this idea about America spreading democracy/liberalism. I feel like we're just switching one party of twats for a party with 5% less twats.

Have you even seen how far right Israel's zionist movement in Gaza is? They are constantly purporting human right's abuses and not even the Democrats bat a single eye lash. They are just as interested in rattling sabers in Iran and just as interested in supporting that Georgian cunt of a president. They have no interest in backing down when it comes to the Middle East.

[Beckwin]

anti-corporation/anti-lobby is picking up in the Democratic party, which is part of what I was referring to when I mentioned what the current election has signaled. We've already made it acceptable to raise taxes on the very wealthy and there's a lot of talk about an Obama presidency redefining the social contract in America; the next step is to hold him and the Dems to promises about closing loopholes, creating domestic employment incentives, and beyond that setting sights on eliminating corrupt subsidization.

[Kuya]

The apparent difference between you and me is that i don't believe in change via the political system; it does not answer to the needs of the people and it is almost always distorted. They will always ignore the needs of the oppressed and demagoguery is a constant in any nation with democratic institutions. You don't bring real and appreciable change through the already largely WASP members of Congress; it starts from the ground up, slowly, and with civic responsibility.

This more "liberal" party at best sports an apologetic ideology that supports itself on the idea of "helping the unfortunate" instead of analyzing and taking measures to change what is wrong with the social system, which just happens to support the status quo.

[Creeps]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...421px-Fist.png

[Correction]

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/3...ber-a-no-show/

oops

[Plow]

“All right guys, I didn’t prepare anything. The only thing I’ve been saying is just to get out and get informed. I mean really know what you’re talking about when you’re talking about it,” Wurzelbacher bellowed.

just lol

[Beckwin]

The apparent difference between you and me is that i don't believe in change via the political system; it does not answer to the needs of the people and it is almost always distorted. They will always ignore the needs of the oppressed and demagoguery is a constant in any nation with democratic institutions. You don't bring real and appreciable change through the already largely WASP members of Congress; it starts from the ground up, slowly, and with civic responsibility.

This more "liberal" party at best sports an apologetic ideology that supports itself on the idea of "helping the unfortunate" instead of analyzing and taking measures to change what is wrong with the social system, which just happens to support the status quo.

Haha, I chuckled when you mentioned a "largely WASP Congress"... I'm betting you were originally thinking more generally.

Ground up change has to work with, or at very least influence, the political system at some point, unless you're advocating some sort of violent revolution. What's particularly exciting about this election, notably on the Dem side of things of course, is how broad-based the movement has become... talk about grassroots fundraising, voter registration, etc. There's some ridiculous statistic like 94% of college students are currently registered to vote. I think it's very arguable that the healthcare push is powered at the grassroots level, and that might be my favorite element of the current democratic platform. along with improving college access in the affordability sense for qualified individuals, I think that's an example of responsiveness by the political machine to the interests of the people. Environmentalism/green energy may also fall in that boat.

Of course not all needs/desires are being met by either party, nor are all oppressions getting proper attention. It's extremely dissappointing to me that no "legit" party, especially the democrats, is willing to openly endorse gay marriage or provide a truly equitable solution (call the government/contractual end of marriage "civil unions" universally). A k-12 education system based on property tax is fundamentally flawed (hence why charter schools which rely generally on state funding are really taking off). and so on.

but like you said, you can't expect everything at once. but I'd rather push with every means possible rather than let the most bumbling, most corrupt WASPy corporatists hold on to power out of some (misguided) sense of balance or unfounded fears.

[Elvis]

US defense secretary expands pre-emptive war doctrine to include nuclear strikes

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oc...gate-o30.shtml

In a remarkable speech on nuclear policy delivered October 28 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), US Defense Secretary Robert Gates painted a dire portrait of international affairs and argued that Washington should expand the doctrine of pre-emptive war formulated by the Bush administration to include possible nuclear strikes.

[Kuya]

They wound't dare.

[Kwijiboe]

http://n4g.com/News-224231.aspx

Best part is when Obama tosses a grenade into the tank cockpit. Although seeing Palin running around with an AK47 is pretty damn hilarious as well.

[Zosi]

http://n4g.com/News-224231.aspx

Best part is when Obama tosses a grenade into the tank cockpit. Although seeing Palin running around with an AK47 is pretty damn hilarious as well.

That's fucking awesome haha...

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Repeal the 1929 law limiting the house to 435 and I bet you'd see more 3rd party Kuya.

[Kuya]

A third party is mostly for counter balancing the others, not for effecting any gradual and substantial change. That requires organization on the parts of the citizens. There's no change that can be made if there's no rehabilitation of the populace; that's why racism won't just go away by making it illegal.

That's why using the government is worthless for handling social problems, it can only remedy the effects not the causes.

[Beckwin]

yes, because social security didn't contribute to a cultural change allowing the elderly to remain independent.

and desegregation totally had 0 influence on the generational diminishment of racist attitudes.

[Kuya]

Yes social security certainly helped answer the problem of the elderly being treated like shit and generally being left to rot in retirement homes because our culture has practically no respect for the older generation, and i'm sure desegregation diminished racism in no quantifiable way since apparently there's still plenty or racism in the south, and in the north people just don't publicaly talk about it. I'm sure desegregation has changed the fact that white people view blacks as angry, violent, and generally out to get whites, and blacks now view white people with more trust and friendship and they certainly don't live in completely different worlds

Hey, Beckwin, wana go with me to a ghetto? Or is your working class white self a little too liberal for that scene?

[Churchill]

A coup by business elites you say Beckwin? Was this because some business elites were losing money while the ones that wanted the Federal Reserve in place profited from WWII and are still in power today? Some even getting money from taxpayers to bail out their banking practices?