5 ms·

Does that somehow make Obama more culpable for the surveillance state? Or does it just make him a liar? Look, my point is this: as long as we waste our time b

by rosser 13y ago

Does that somehow make Obama more culpable for the surveillance state? Or does it just make him a liar? Look, my point is this: as long as we waste our time bickering over whose fucking fault this mess is, no-one is doing a damned thing to fix it. I'd rather people spend their time and energy on the latter. If you think finger-pointing is a better use of yours, more power to you, and have fun with that.

philwelch 13y ago
> Does that somehow make Obama more culpable for the surveillance state? Actually, yes. Because back when people were angry enough about the issue, they focused all that anger on Bush. Then comes Obama and all that energy gets transformed into support for him because people honestly believed that he was different, that he was against ever-expanding warfare abroad and ever-shrinking civil liberties at home. And when he won in 2008, the people of this country, who were outraged at everything Bush had done, got their satisfaction. There was vast public sentiment against this kind of thing. Obama subverted it and destroyed it.
- Vivtek 13y ago
  He was actually given the Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush - 100% subversion. I think it's not unfair to say that he's harmed American democracy more than Bush could have, by legitimizing every harmful thing Bush did.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - malandrew 13y ago
    Can the committee giving out that prize revoke it? And if so, have they ever done so in the past and under what pretenses?
    - philwelch 13y ago
      They never revoked the ones they gave to Kissinger or Arafat. It's a bit of a sham to be honest.
rhizome 13y ago
It makes him more of a liar through his inconsistency of ethics.
- rosser 13y ago
  I think it shows that his ethics are perfectly consistent — with those of the standard-issue American politician: promise whatever will get you elected. The anger people are feeling comes from their having been duped, yet again, by yet another of these creatures. The fact that he talked such a good game, was given such a golden opportunity to talk that game, and inspired so much hope — going so far as to make the word a centerpiece of his campaign — just made it that much worse when those hopes were dashed, even flouted, so completely. Welcome to American politics. You can hate the player, or you can hate the game.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    This is a pretty big topic, so I'll just offer this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_%28existentialism%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_%28existentialism%29 Yes, you can say his ethics (such as they are) are consistent, but it's a weak form of ethics that do not govern one's actions.
ekianjo 13y ago
Yes. With Bush you know what you get. He's transparent like clear water and you know the policies he wants to push for. Obama passes for an idealist but actually acts like a Bush in disguise. That's way more despicable. That's called deceit and fraud.
goggles99 13y ago
Well the first step to fixing it is to throw Obama out of office (that starts with finger pointing). That would be the single most powerful statement that the US public could make. We will tear down any leader or administration who acts this way.
- parasubvert 13y ago
  That assumes you have an electable replacement in mind that will not cause worse problems.
  - etherael 13y ago
    No, because "electable" may as well be shorthand for "will behave in the same fashion as the last two puppet stooges" End the game, not the players.
    - parasubvert 13y ago
      Change the game, sure. End the game? No. Revolutions usually wind up with a much worse game as a result.
      - etherael 13y ago
        Consider if the world had never had a revolution the current state we would be in. I don't buy that's a better picture.
        parasubvert 13y ago
        In most cases, revolution was dynamite that blew up the old regime, and had little bearing on creating a desirable society and regime to take its place. In most of Europe this happened through centuries of political reform. We like to romanticize the few revolutions that had positive outcomes (America), but also downplay the utterly disastrous consequences of others (France). We also like to ignore that today's terrorists are often what we used to call revolutionaries. (Was 9/11 was not Act 1 in a revolution in US governance?) My point is that violence exists, and revolutions happen. But they exist to destroy, not to create. Annoying, compromising, good old politics haVe to clean up the mess and replace it with something better. That's rare.

by rosser 13y ago

philwelch 13y ago

> Does that somehow make Obama more culpable for the surveillance state? Actually, yes. Because back when people were angry enough about the issue, they focused all that anger on Bush. Then comes Obama and all that energy gets transformed into support for him because people honestly believed that he was different, that he was against ever-expanding warfare abroad and ever-shrinking civil liberties at home. And when he won in 2008, the people of this country, who were outraged at everything Bush had done, got their satisfaction. There was vast public sentiment against this kind of thing. Obama subverted it and destroyed it.

Vivtek 13y ago
He was actually given the Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush - 100% subversion. I think it's not unfair to say that he's harmed American democracy more than Bush could have, by legitimizing every harmful thing Bush did.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- malandrew 13y ago
  Can the committee giving out that prize revoke it? And if so, have they ever done so in the past and under what pretenses?
  - philwelch 13y ago
    They never revoked the ones they gave to Kissinger or Arafat. It's a bit of a sham to be honest.

rhizome 13y ago

It makes him more of a liar through his inconsistency of ethics.

rosser 13y ago
I think it shows that his ethics are perfectly consistent — with those of the standard-issue American politician: promise whatever will get you elected. The anger people are feeling comes from their having been duped, yet again, by yet another of these creatures. The fact that he talked such a good game, was given such a golden opportunity to talk that game, and inspired so much hope — going so far as to make the word a centerpiece of his campaign — just made it that much worse when those hopes were dashed, even flouted, so completely. Welcome to American politics. You can hate the player, or you can hate the game.
- rhizome 13y ago
  This is a pretty big topic, so I'll just offer this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_%28existentialism%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_%28existentialism%29 Yes, you can say his ethics (such as they are) are consistent, but it's a weak form of ethics that do not govern one's actions.

ekianjo 13y ago

Yes. With Bush you know what you get. He's transparent like clear water and you know the policies he wants to push for. Obama passes for an idealist but actually acts like a Bush in disguise. That's way more despicable. That's called deceit and fraud.

goggles99 13y ago

Well the first step to fixing it is to throw Obama out of office (that starts with finger pointing). That would be the single most powerful statement that the US public could make. We will tear down any leader or administration who acts this way.

parasubvert 13y ago
That assumes you have an electable replacement in mind that will not cause worse problems.
- etherael 13y ago
  No, because "electable" may as well be shorthand for "will behave in the same fashion as the last two puppet stooges" End the game, not the players.
  - parasubvert 13y ago
    Change the game, sure. End the game? No. Revolutions usually wind up with a much worse game as a result.
    - etherael 13y ago
      Consider if the world had never had a revolution the current state we would be in. I don't buy that's a better picture.
      - parasubvert 13y ago
        In most cases, revolution was dynamite that blew up the old regime, and had little bearing on creating a desirable society and regime to take its place. In most of Europe this happened through centuries of political reform. We like to romanticize the few revolutions that had positive outcomes (America), but also downplay the utterly disastrous consequences of others (France). We also like to ignore that today's terrorists are often what we used to call revolutionaries. (Was 9/11 was not Act 1 in a revolution in US governance?) My point is that violence exists, and revolutions happen. But they exist to destroy, not to create. Annoying, compromising, good old politics haVe to clean up the mess and replace it with something better. That's rare.