Guest Post: President Obama, Demopublican

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

President Obama, Demopublican

President Obama's signal accomplishments could easily have been signed into law by a moderate Republican.

The corporate Mainstream Media depends on ideological differences to generate "news" and advertising revenues, and the Status Quo depends on ideological differences to generate fear "of the other side" and enthusiasm "for our side."

As the 2012 election season kicks off in earnest, we have to ask: exactly what is the difference between President Obama's actual policies and those of centerist Republicans?

The president recently highlighted three centerpiece accomplishments of his supposedly rabidly Democratic administration:

1. Ending the war in Iraq

2. Ending the Armed Forces' policy of "don't ask, don't tell"

3. Passing sickcare reform, oops, I mean "healthcare" reform

If we examine these supposedly tremendous accomplishments, we find that moderate Republicans were equally capable of passing such lukewarm reforms. The war in Iraq was deeply unpopular, acceptance of gays is increasingly mainstream, and healthcare reform had been on everyone's agenda for years.

Anyone with the slightest grasp of American history could find equally "liberal" accomplishments in the administrations of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and even George Bush 1. Indeed, it could easily be argued that Obama ended the war far later than a moderate Republican might have, and that he caved into the sickcare Status Quo to such a degree that his "reform" essentially accomplishes nothing.

The hundreds of pages of reform boil down to a super-committee that is supposedly going to set prices and practices lower in the future. Meanwhile the program is at least 40% waste and fraud and continues growing at multiples of the underlying economy and tax revenues.

By any measure, this "reform" simply confirms the healthcare cartels remain firmly in charge.

On the other side the of the ledger, Obama continues the FUBAR war in Afghanistan, sacrificing American lives and treasure for political posturing, and he agreed ("with reservations") to a congressional bill that gives the President unprecedented rights to impose "prolonged detention" on suspected terrorists and handing them to the U.S. Armed Forces, even as the military insists it has no interest or need in assuming such detention responsibilities.

Would a moderate Republican have agreed to gut the Bill of Rights with such tepid "reservations"?

It can be argued that Obama, visibly uncomfortable with members of the Armed Forces and fearful of being labeled "soft" on terrorism, has carved out an essentially fascist policy far to the right of even "rock-ribbed" Republicans.

From a more objective view stripped of phony ideological parsing, what exactly is the difference between Obama's policies and those of moderate Republicans? We can get a better grasp on his Demopublican nature by asking a few key questions:

How many bloated weapons systems has he cancelled? (Zero)

How many overseas bases of the Empire has he closed? (none)

Who runs his financial policies? Wall Street cronies.

I think you get the idea here: there is literally no difference between Obama and a moderate Republican when it comes to the truly important policies governing the nation's insolvent finances, its predatory financial sector, its corrupt and fraudulent sickcare system or its sprawling Empire.

Obama's policies have all aided and abetted existing Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms. He has changed absolutely nothing of import except further eroding civil liberties.

President Obama can be charitably characterized as an ineffectual Demopublican. From those demanding more, then he can be accurately described as a well-meaning puppet of Wall Street and the rest of the Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms.

Longtime readers know I reject all the phony ideological "differences" between the two stooge parties; in reality, the differences are purely cosmetic and are exaggerated for propaganda and fund-raising purposes. Both stooge parties are in thrall to Wall Street and the financial sector, the sickcare cartels, etc., and both support a global Empire and endlessly rising public debt to finance their cronies. Both have consistently supported private profits while shifting monumental losses to the public. Both have consistently supported an out-of-control Federal Reserve. In every truly important way, the two stooge parties are merely two sides of the same Imperial coin.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You lost me when I read the word "Obama."


eureka's picture

William Black: "The Obama admin sent people out to tell every single State Attorney to not prosecute any single banker in the US."

When Barry came to D.C. he told FED VICE a.k.a. Justice Department to lay off State Medical Marihuana initiatives. Then in 2011 Barry told FED VICE/Justice-Dep the opposite.

Barry and his mediocrity makes me puke.

So does the Republican Elite.

Get dirty. Fight For Paul - Fight For "America" - last chance, Bitchez.

wanklord's picture

Ron Paul supporters must realize by now that their beloved candidate is just another phony politician serving the interests of the elite and the corrupt establishment. If Dr. Paul is really serious about running for the presidency of this country, why he doesn't run as an independent?

IT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT RON PAUL HAS ZERO CHANCES TO WIN THE REPUBLICAN TICKET, thus why wasting your precious time and money on someone who doesn't give a crap about your concerns.

As a result of this, it is valid to assert that by appealing to tons of bullshit about the Constitution and other patriotic crap, Congressman Ron Paul is able to seduce his brute and ignorant constituency while doing nothing at all in Congress (a clever way to make easy money). Mr. Paul loves to portray himself as a genuine patriot who advocates Liberty, Freedom and other nonsense in order to deceive his supporters.

Moreover, Ron Paul is a mediocre version of one of Leo Strauss’(*) categories of society: the Gentlemen

The gentlemen, are lovers of honour and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society – that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honour, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment’s notice.

* Political philosopher (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973)

whstlblwr's picture

Everyone get registered in your state for the primary to vote Ron Paul
Full Primary/Caucus Calendar
January 3, 2012 Iowa (caucus) – Results
January 10, 2012 New Hampshire (primary)
January 21, 2012 South Carolina (primary)
January 31, 2012 Florida (primary)
February 4, 2012 Nevada (caucus)
February 4–11, 2012 Maine (caucus)
February 7, 2012 Colorado (caucus)
Minnesota (caucus)
Missouri (primary) – *See note below on Missouri
February 28, 2012 Arizona (primary)
Michigan (primary)
March 3, 2012 Washington (caucus)
March 6, 2012
(Super Tuesday) Alaska (caucus)
Georgia (primary)
Idaho (caucus)
Massachusetts (primary)
North Dakota (caucus)
Ohio (primary)
Oklahoma (primary)
Tennessee (primary)
Vermont (primary)
Virginia (primary)
March 6-10, 2012 Wyoming (caucus)
March 10, 2012 Kansas (caucus)
U.S. Virgin Islands (caucus)
March 13, 2012 Alabama (primary)
Hawaii (caucus)
Mississippi (primary)
March 17, 2012 Missouri (GOP caucus) – *See note below on Missouri
March 20, 2012 Illinois (primary)
March 24, 2012 Louisiana (primary)

MillionDollarBonus_'s picture


The upcoming election promises to be a riveting one. Mitt Romney is the clear frontrunner and looks to take on Obama in November. The key issue in the upcomming elections is going be the ECONOMY. Romney and Obama will have to start talking straight with the American people about their plans for getting this country back on track. Both candidates are going to have to answer some tough questions such as:

1. What do you plan to do about jobs?

2. How do you plan to help small businesses in America?

3. How are you going to promote alternative energies and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil?

4. Can you GUARENTEE that there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare or the Defense Budget?

I don’t envy politicians right now. These are tough times to be leading the world, and the American people are rightfully demanding more from their governments because they want RESULTS.


Michael's picture

Dr Ron Paul Won Against The Main Stream Media!

They pulled their divide and conker strategy on us and they're all happy they think they've pulled off a win for themselves by campaigning for Santorum.

I have the memo somewhere, "We're all in agreement to comply". But they didn't realize they were exposing our actual numbers in this first contest of legitimate size, and just who do you think you're dealing with?

In the mind game 1/3 left and 1/3 right now see what their up against. 1/3 Paul!

They conspired to put the MSM against us. Can you imagine how much fire power that is in the TV world combined with the GOP establishment and blessed by the Federal Government?



The Ron Paul Crew.


Santorum/Romney First, Ron Paul Second.

That should be the morning headline.

Fox news and others were too good at their job with their divide and conker strategy.

Hugh_Jorgan's picture

Sorry, but you need further context to know what is REALLY meant by this assertion that Obama is a Demopublican. First is that the actual Republican platform charter is WAY more conservative than what passes in the GOP these days. NONE of the Republicans follow those planks, they have been seduced by the "me-too" big government, central planning of the 90's. Everyone is trying to take a page form the Bill Clinton playbook.

The point being; it is not that Obama has moved so far right, it's that the GOP politicians have moved so far Left that the Republican platform now overlaps with the Obama platform. This is how we now have one party. It's called the ruling class.


PulpCutter's picture

ROFL.  What planet are you on, Hugh_Jorgan?  Try pulling your head out from between Roger Ailes buttcheeks, and dealing with the facts.

The country has shifted wildly to the RIGHT, not left, in the past few decades.  Justices appointed by Republican presidents are (or were) considered the 'mainstay liberals' of the Supreme Court: Stevens was a Nixon appointee, Souter was a Bush I appointee, and even 'swing vote' O'Conner was a Reagan appointee. 

The Affordable Care Act's individual mandate was originally an idea proposed by the GOP Heritage Foundation "thinktank", and broadly supported by the mainstream GOP in the 1990s, including Bob Dole and Jack Kemp.  Even your favorite propaganda slingers, FauxNews, got this one right - but apparently 99% of the GOP can lie their asses off to their constituents and not get called on it.

The simple fact is that the GOP is 100% in it for the corporate money they can pocket - with many Democrats not far behind.


economics1996's picture

Goldman gave Obama over $1 million last election.  Wall Street gave to Democrats 70% last election.  You are a idot drinking the Kool aid.

PulpCutter's picture

Moron, you mentioned 2008, but conspicuously forget to mention what's going on in 2011/12.  Care to fill us in on why your memory is spotty on the subject?

Oh yeah, that's because, as was widely reported so you couldn't have missed it, the banks have reverted to their historical trend of contributing 70% GOP and 30% Democratic.


Max Fischer's picture



The only reason Goldman and the rest of Wall Street donated millions to Obama is because it was 100% FUCKING OBVIOUS he was going to beat ANY Republican candidate, especially after McBush picked the chief flight attendant for Piedmont Airlines to be his running mate.*  After the monstrosity of the Bush administration and with our country spiraling straight into The Great Depression 2.0, any Democrat (even a Negro! Gasp!) was GUARANTEED to win, so the money started pouring into Obama's coffers.  Additionally, the very EXISTENCE of investment banking (post GLB Act) was in the process of imploding and everyone knew that the entire Wall Street industry - as it's existed since Reagan - was about to be called into question.  Did you forget what was happening to Wall Street in 2008?

It's amazing to me that you'll overlook the obvious just to puke out more talking points from Faux News.  I've read other posts of yours, and it's obvious that your brain has been thoroughly washed, rinsed, fluffed, and folded by the Murdoch Propaganda Machine like millions of others.  Let me guess... Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity are personal heros?  Palin, Bachmann and Coulter excite you?     

*credit to Matt Tiabbi

Cathartes Aura's picture

fkng brilliant - good to the last. . .word!

as many as you like.


edit to add - I don't care what you "vote" for, but THIS was truthy snark, high quality posting.

Max Fischer's picture



All credit goes to my Lord and savior, Jesus Christ.  Been doing a LOT of praying lately, Cathartes.  Lots.  Sometimes, during the Rapture Season, the holy spirit fills my fingers with the spirit of Christ and I'm able to produce ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING commentary. If you've been "chosen" (like I have), you can do it, too.  Next time you try to post something, say a little prayer first.  Promise to give a little more next Sunday when the offering plate comes around.  Then concentrate. Concentrate real hard. Think of the Cross.  Think of the Constitution.  Think of American patriots like Rick Perry.  When the tips of your fingers start smoking, THAT'S when you know Jesus is in control. Don't fight it.  Just sit back and let your fingers type as the Lord shall SAYETH UNTO US!



Cathartes Aura's picture

see, this is why I love it here.

and I too love it when my fingertips start smokin'  *inhales deeply*

you take care now.

Cathartes Aura's picture


brilliantly played - dizzyfingers, ILY2, obviously!


economics1996's picture


Hugh Jordon, for the record Bill Clinton was by far the most conservative president we will ever see, reducing the federal government from 22.1% of the GDP to 18.2% of the GDP consumption.


Ropingdown's picture

Have to agree WJC was a good Republican in part.  However, what gets missed is that he put his best efforts into expanding the off-the-books entitlements growth.  It's killing us.  They didn't call him slick for nothing.  I will never forgive him for granting an export waiver to Raytheon to export missile guidance technology to The Peoples Republic of China.  Commerce had fought it off for years.  Bill needs soft money.  Michael Schwartz donates 1 mil to the DNC. Bang, Raytheon gets its export license and China finally gets more accurate shoot us with.  AS FOR the decrease in deficits, it matched the increasing cap gains tax revenues....and the benefit went away with the dot.crash.

nmewn's picture

"I will never forgive him for granting an export waiver to Raytheon to export missile guidance technology to The Peoples Republic of China.  Commerce had fought it off for years."

I believe this is incorrect.

Defense fought it off for years. Clinton took the trade authority from the DoD and gave it to Commerce. Who then promptly sold it off.

Ropingdown's picture

I believe Commerce said 'no' because DoD said 'no,'  but then Commerce said yes.  I suppose the point I want to make is that Clinton's team pushed approval just as that 1 million check showed up.  Do you disagree with that analysis?

nmewn's picture

The authority for the technology to be sold to the Chi-Coms was transferred from DoD to Clinton, as I recall.

Then of course there was the Commerce Secretarys untimely demise in a plane crash...but thats neither here nor there ;-)

But yes, the campaign check cleared just like all the other foreign donations/gifts that are against the law to accept.

WaterWings's picture


Thanks for keeping up the good fight so continuously. :-)

Saying Clinton was the best budget Prez in recent memory is to exclaim incredible gas mileage while on the down-slope. ;-)

Clinton also demonstrated that being of strong "moral character" is not a necessary job requirement for the Executive Branch anymore. O_0

nmewn's picture

I'm always amazed by the supporters of Clinton.

The debt never went down under his presidency. He officially broke the publics respect for the office he was trusted with by lying in our face on national television. Stared straight into the camera as he said it. No morality whatsoever...none. Didn't even blink. He tried to define down the rule of law with his wormy definition of the word "is". Perjured himself and was disbarred...properly so.

He also signed NAFTA, one of the very tools used to rob the middle class of what everyone bitches about today. He put Rubin in a position of responsibility that abetted the housing bubble. He also signed off on the repeal of Rubins urging.

The cronyism of his administration is only surpassed by the current one.

dizzyfingers's picture


"Stared straight into the camera as he said it. No morality whatsoever...none. Didn't even blink. He tried to define down the rule of law with his wormy definition of the word "is". Perjured himself and was disbarred...properly so."

...just like every true sociopath in D.C. There are so many!

nmewn's picture

Theres a ton of em dizzy...on both sides and all points in between.

We're either gonna vote em out where ever they are or...that other option is too awful to contemplate.

Look at where we're at here in this nation.

We have a social worker as president saying "I gave you a $40 a month tax break."


A buck thrity a day? We're supposed to be appreciative of him letting us keep a whole dollar more of what we earn while he prints our labors actual worth into ashes?

Thats where we're at.

A skinny little narcissist with illusions of grandeur (president), a dysfunctional flock of preening peacocks (senate), a gang that can't shoot straight (house) and what can only be described as common theives frantically trying to extract favor from all the above.

dizzyfingers's picture

Forced  to it by a conservative congress, I think? By that time they had him by short hairs.

Freddie's picture

I read a real conservative site/financial guru this morning who said Ron Paul may actually get many or the majority of the Iowa delegates.  Remember we still have a delegate system, even though the scum Democrat muslim lovers want to do away with it.  Those lib dems like a lot of is**ic p*nile.

If Ron Paul has a lot of delegates, he could win or be a king maker. Maybe he will be able to extract the cuts and things needed.  I prefer Ron Paul for the win.  

FMR Bankster's picture

I thought RP would win so take my comments with a grain of salt. But I think your comments here are correct. In my caucus last night 460 people voted and we had 35 delegate spots to the county and district convention. Less than 35 of us hung around and were elected delegates. Most voted and left as soon as they could. By the time the counting was over anyone who wanted to be a delegate could be regardless of who they supported. So organization matters. Good weather did RP in last night. Too many old people showed up. Exit polls done showed RP with 48% of the vote from those under 30 but he finished 5th with only 11% of those 65 and over. A kind way to view that would be they thought someone age 76 is too old to be president. Unfortunately a more accurate view is all they are concerned about is their checks and benefits and to hell with the kids and grandkids.

Shizzmoney's picture

A kind way to view that would be they thought someone age 76 is too old to be president. Unfortunately a more accurate view is all they are concerned about is their checks and benefits and to hell with the kids and grandkids.

My dad, who is 63, feels the same way about Paul (but likes some of his views, views him as a 'nice man')...minus the "hell with kids/grandkids" part.  He knows he has to work his ass off and save now because unless I win a WSOP bracelet, I'm not going ot make enough in wages to support me AND potentially him in a home age 85+ (unless, god-willing, he can stay healthy..which he is now).

It is a scary thought.

WaterWings's picture

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise to see video from a trial with testimony of vote programming fraud:

Edit: this was a Heph response. So sorry.

Hephasteus's picture

I told you they were going to cheat the votes. It's like about a year ago when 2 or 3 people kept coming out saying how it's "impossible" to fake earnings in corporate america. I was laughing my fucking ass off for a week. Because we've seen nothing but faked earnings out of every jackhole retail piece of shit every jackhole state taxation authority and every jackhole fed pumped fucktard on the planet.

The votes have been cheated for years. CPU's just make it easier. Even though Al Gore was just as fucking evil as George Bush he was a victim of voter fraud in Florida. And Ron Paul will just as big of a victim of created numbers and outcomes as can be gotten away with in a world where people think computers aren't anything but automated lying boxes.

If you work in the tier 1 level of the electronics industry or higher you are a seriously fucked up piece of work. You're garbage. You're scum. No If's and's or's or butt's in the boolean logic of it.

WaterWings's picture

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise to see video from a trial with testimony of vote programming fraud:

Archduke's picture

Can we drop the Dr title?  it smells of populist agit-prop: Dr Duvalier, Dr Idi Amin, Dr Lyndon Larouche...

then again Ron Paul's campaign does share the aroma of the Larouchite school of disinformation media...


now to be fair that's probably not Ron Paul's fault.  There's a lot of goodwill sycophanting going on

and a lot of enthusiam to pin would-be-tarian anarchistic coulours of choice on his back.  that's

the price to pay for grass-roots campaigns.  you can't predic the kinds of critters what  lurk in the grass.

Badabing's picture

Ron Paul won the Iowa caucus if you use the old counting methods check Shadowstats!

eureka's picture

Michael and Badabing - you are right.

In addition - let every one who cares about reviving "America" to its glory and potential via re-instating the US Constitution to its original pre-emminent position - get ready to fight, even dirty, as its enemies do.

One source to examine and draw from: - it has a quck video intro and more info - which can be used against Romney, by simply exposing actual Mormon theology - to for example Christian fundamentalists, Baptists and Born Agains, who thus enlightened can be encouraged to vote for Ron Paul.

Pragmatism, Friends, in combat - won the Presidency for W - courtecy of one pragmatic operator,  Karl Rove,  executing a strategy involving precisely what I here advocate: harness the ready and waiting religious forces in the USA for the Republican candidacy and US Presidency of Ron Paul.

The GPD ELITE is trying to destroy Ron Paul, not just through MSM, but through outright voter goating and fraud. Check it out and start fighting.

Cathartes Aura's picture

so you want to "expose actual Mormon theology" so that the Christian fundamentalists, Baptists & Born Agains" will be "enlightened" to vote for Paul. . .

is there any room left in amrka for those folk that would rather be LEFT OUT of the RELIGIOUS based laws encroaching on personal rights and free will? 

MUST we live in a theocracy?

while I'm here, I'll just respond to the "obama is a demopublican" - make it easy on yourselves guys - recognise the President is the President - irrespective of which team colours he wore for the voting game, when in the role of President, he will be representing the owners, like all good team players. . .

voters vote, the President is bought & paid for, the last one was, and the one before that, and before that. . .

nmewn's picture

"is there any room left in amrka for those folk that would rather be LEFT OUT of the RELIGIOUS based laws encroaching on personal rights and free will

MUST we live in a theocracy?"

You bring up a good line of thought Cat.

What is the source of all law? Is murder & rape bad or good?

Ropingdown's picture

Simple.  What is bad is what we democratically conclude is bad.  Thus murder and rape are considered bad in the US (most of it), while not so bad in in Afghanistan or South Africa.  It's not relativism.  It's "thank my parents I wasn't born in Afghanistan"...  God doesn't make something good or bad unfortunately, because the god has published too many books which don't concur.  I don't know why this happened, only that it did.  Sometimes god says slavery is fine, other times maybe not.  etc.

StychoKiller's picture

Sorry, democracy is waay overrated -- the majority favored locking up loyal Nipponese citizens in internment camps, supported Jim Crow, etc...besides, we have a Republican form of Govt in the USA, read the US Constitution.

Cathartes Aura's picture

must I choose a FatherSkyGod before I can know in my heart that "murder" or "rape" of another human being is not "good"?

were there no moral arguments prior to FatherSkyGods?

is it necessary to continue to pretend that "our leaders" are avatars of their HeavenlyFathers, or can we maybe evolve to being just and fair without giving "God" credit for our thoughts and actions?

blunderdog's picture

...can we maybe evolve to being just and fair without giving "God" credit for our thoughts and actions?

Perhaps, but those evolution-oriented types may have to outbreed the savage brutes who need the Big Daddy and kill each other for calling Him by the wrong name.

nmewn's picture


I'm always surprised by the righteous indignation of such open progressive minds ;-)

Cathartes Aura's picture

see nmewn, I'm pretty sure you're being subtly derogatory here, and that's boring, especially with the smiley.

"righteous indignation"?  how do you know I wasn't singing my reply to you in gentle plaintive soprano tones? why characterise my reply as indignant, when it was merely to point out some people have different perspectives, and values even?  and the "progressive" part, that's a big ole swear word here at ZH, so either define it, or *pass*

What is the source of all law? Is murder & rape bad or good?

by "law" are you referring to such as UCC type, lawyers, etc?  because we all know that law is white Euro based, and as currently practiced, it is tyranny, disguised as fair doctrine. . . well, some of us know, some still "believe" in it, like religion. 

we have the whole world of ideas to choose from, daily - yet we habitually continue to reprogramme our mind (reMIND) upon awakening each morning with our name and our agenda, and so voila!  cue: groundhog day movie meme - and then we have the small-minded audacity to call it reality, and mock - or worse! - anyone who doesn't share that reality. . . THAT is the height of immaturity and ignorance, and in a nationstate, absolutely repulsive.

nmewn's picture

"how do you know I wasn't singing my reply to you in gentle plaintive soprano tones?"

From your tone of course...and no smiley, as you prefer.

"and the "progressive" part, that's a big ole swear word here at ZH, so either define it, or *pass*"

I find most things said here in the  ZH comment sections difficult to pass on...but I can't define something even progressives themselves have failed to define to anyones general satisfaction. So to me, the term has always been a front for hiding the nature of something. A screen. Smoke. You would have to ask one if you can ever catch one before he slithers back under a rock.


You started your hyperventilating screed railing on about free will, personal rights and saying we live in a theocracy.

Where or when have you been forced to believe in or practice a religion by law? What country? Do you even know what a theocracy looks and feels like?

You spent the better part of a day and a half debating Crockett on a womans "choice". Do you know how women are treated at the bar of justice in a theocracy?

I started out with two simple questions and was treated to your evolutionary process of no answers...just more questions than had originally been posed.

You know as well as I that western civilizations law is based on Judeo-Christian priniples but you didn't tarry long enough to debate the merits of them. Instead you launched into a tirade against the ultimate source of them.

Why would that be?

No ones trying to convert you to anything. You have your "free will" and "personal rights" to choose whatever you want to believe in based on those very laws. To now come and say the law or their principles must be abandoned for some as yet unexplained (by you) "other worldview"...because they go unenforced by the powerful & connected...smacks of defeatism.

Something I am also not familiar with.

Cathartes Aura's picture

ahhh, thanks for flipping over your rock nmewn, and bringing your emotions out to air - as I said, your tone was detectable behind the smiley, so in order to address your agenda, I needed to be able to read it. . .

so you were a silent party to posts exchanged with Crockett (and others) over the long weekend. . . pity you didn't feel up to arguing your points then, because my intention was to air out the stale echo of Paulism these threads can degenerate into now that the team spirit is filling the voters once again.

you lads get hung up on the single topic issues, and abortion is an easy hook - BUT the more nuanced point I have been highlighting is the rules for voting keep getting strictly adhered to:

  • Pick your man
  • Decide which of his points you like best, hopefully the easy ones that your fellow fans obviously agree with
  • Ignore the points that are too hard to argue, or that you don't really care about anyhow
  • Apply your favourite labels to your chosen guy - make them the cool ones like "libertarian"

early on I posed the simple question; "how is it that a libertarian, whose basic "beliefs" are the right to personal "liberty" - like the brand name says! how is it that a libertarian would seek to change the Constitution to limit those rights for females?  the right to make a personal decision about her own body?"   I even did a bit of research prior, trying to see the various points of view from "libertarian" sites, and they were pretty clear on the subject.

question designed to promote critical thinking in the voter mind - nothing more.  it's not about any particular candidate - I played devil's advocate when many people were set on voting in Obama, the "anyone but Bush" vote, those who were nudged into HOPEing that another round of voting would CHANGE things - and they did! they changed the FIGUREHEAD!  which is exactly what "voting" can do - it can change the focal point for a voter's frustration! 

what it DOESN'T do is change the system that is causing the frustration. . . this is beyond "voting" - this is huge, and it's the thing that encourages voting, because if people have to disrupt their day to day lives, if they have to get informed and take direct action, even towards just becoming AWARE and more dis-engaged from the system - well, that takes work and it hurts the brain, it's easier to just pick a dude and follow the easy steps above, just like all your pals do - you're part of the public, and can wear the T-shirt that shows how rad your choices are - Team Spirit!!. . . (your being "in general" not "you" specifically)

I was trying to get some critical thinking going.

as to your defense of "Judeo-Christian principles" - I'm very well aware of the misery both flavours have caused along with the foundations of "morality" - and we both know I've read many of your posts here over the years, so I know your point of view, and you know mine - we don't agree.  I am not in favour of FatherSkyGod religions, they privilege the ones who dreamed the notion up - go figure eh! - and the religions may have nice principles but their practioners come in many flavours, some of them being evil shits, control freaks, pedophiles, etc.  so no, I'm not interested in discussing religion at all with you.

I have as much "free will" as you do.  If Ron Paul magically was put in place & could magically get his Sanctity of Life bill passed, theoretically I would lose the right to decide, and would be forced to carry a zygote to foetus to birth irrespective of any of the circumstances - such as incest, rape, illness, financial situation, mental health.  I say "theoretically" because I am well versed in ways of maintaining my sovereignty, it's been a lifelong creative endeavor.

you are free to believe whatever you like - about the world, the right to vote, and even "me" - doesn't change the truths, about any of those things, including my truths, which you don't have a clue about, but on you go.

nmewn's picture

"so you were a silent party to posts exchanged with Crockett (and others) over the long weekend. . . pity you didn't feel up to arguing your points then"

I was not silent. You simply missed it.

"as to your defense of "Judeo-Christian principles" - I'm very well aware of the misery both flavours have caused along with the foundations of "morality" - and we both know I've read many of your posts here over the years, so I know your point of view, and you know mine - we don't agree."

No we don't agree. But it is the foundation of our law. It could be much worse. So, now you see, this is not a no one lost their head over it ;-)

Sorry couldn't resist the smiley.

"the religions may have nice principles but their practioners come in many flavours, some of them being evil shits, control freaks, pedophiles, etc.  so no, I'm not interested in discussing religion at all with you."

This may be where I can help you understand and then we can amicably let the topic drop.

Making an appearance in a church or a synagogue or a mosque or gazing at crystals on a cliff at sunset or kneeling before an elephant in a temple does not make things right with God. Its whats inside you, your belief in Him. And you knowing in your heart whats right & wrong in His eyes. He knows we are mortal. Given to all the vanities, lusts, desires and greeds (myself included) that make men (and women) mere mortals. I would also add its not a prerequisite for pedophiles, egomaniacs and evil shits to belong to a church or Quite a few of the most notable were/are agnostics and/or you know.

Now, between you and I...wink wink...I was raised by a preacher. Which may or may not be why I don't go to church now. I got a pretty good dose of it growing up. But I could tell you some stuff that would curl your hair. I can assure you, its very real.

At any rate, its been fun. When I cuss or ogle Banzais women always remember, I'm just human, not a saint. Far from it.


Cathartes Aura's picture

I'm all for amicably letting the subject of religion / religious choice be dropped.  it's like arguing favourite colours. . .

No we don't agree. But it is the foundation of our law. It could be much worse. So, now you see, this is not a theocracy

with reference to Judeo-Christian morality - yes, there is a certain flavour to "our laws" and this flavour could be worse, as in "this is not a theocracy" - however, I believe that were some people not vigilant in voicing their beliefs and making their voices heard, this nationstate could be under some theocratic rules & laws in a heartbeat

same with anything YOU feel is worth protecting, some people believe that a female's right to decide whether to carry a foetus to full term is hers alone - and attempting to change the Constitution to remove this right, defining "life" as beginning when the sperm & egg merge, the zygote phase, and then letting States decide how they'd like to criminalise the female should "something happen" to the precious zygote, THAT my friend has creepy theology written all over it - particularly when there doesn't seem to be any complimentary new laws that point to how this precious zygote is going to fare once it leaves the female's body & has to live in this world of "austerity" - 20% of all amrkn children live in poverty, nearly 30% are on food stamps - are taxpayers to continue to fund the precious newborns, and for how long?  or is the Constitution's work done once the zygote gets a RIGHT to life?  where is THIS discussion?  *crickets*

and I'm not necessarily directing those questions to you, but they ARE conveniently missing from the discussion threads.

you'll not be surprised to know that I too was raised in a religious family - a fundamental religious family where as long as you kept the family secrets, you could show up and pretend pious normal at every sanctioned gathering. . . and you'll not be surprised to know that once I became old enough to see through that evil non-sense, I was outta there, to another country no less, just to put distance between me and insanity - I was cut off from the whole clan with nary a backward glance from them, and you know what?  it hurt then, but it was the greatest gift I could have in my life, once I understood how to think and be for myself and those I chose to care for. . . freed from having to "fit in" with family lineage, I could make my OWN family, which is a pleasure.

we could exchange hair-curling stories no doubt - yours, mine, and all the other ones I have witnessed over the years - the hidden abuse of righteous believers is an iceberg, and with any luck, it will sink the myths over time.

I agree that whatever one believes, it should come from the heart - right and wrong doesn't need an-other's nod of approval, but if it feels better to the individual - why not?  I have zero problems with truly religious folks who practise their beliefs, and live their truths - in fact, I do volunteer work at the moment with the Quakers, and get along just fine - it's when religion gets tangled up in laws that restrict others that I will lend my voice to "no."

and for the record, "cussing & ogling" are pretty tame things, and ubiquitous in majority male environments - the former I rarely mind, the latter I reserve the right to mock when the mood strikes - I'll give you a pass for at least engaging in a dialogue, k? 

lol, take care.

nmewn's picture

"I believe that were some people not vigilant in voicing their beliefs and making their voices heard, this nationstate could be under some theocratic rules & laws in a heartbeat. "

And you would have one of the strongest allies in me.

But there must be a point of balance in all things. Finding that balance is often simpler than the long drawn out fight trying to hide its discovery.

Regarding abortion...I know you're dying for my opinion...

This is one of those things that will forever ride on the blades edge of balance. Teetering this way and that. There can be be no doubt (from a Judeo-Christian perspective) that God granted us sovereignty over our own bodies while here on earth. Even someone who does not believe in God has to agree in the individuals sovereignty. To abuse or strengthen at our will. But on the same token we know what is right & wrong. It can't be right that when something has a heartbeat and brain activity to say that it is not alive in any real sense.

At the end of it, it really is a personal choice a woman will ultimately make and live with the consequences of that choice...forever. And forever is a very long time. Believe me, I don't envy the weight of that decision always falling on the woman alone, by herself. Life or death.

But it always will.

Biologically, there is nothing he can do to prevent her will from being enforced. Accidents happen, only one of the two would really know. Again, the weight of it (the decision) is enormous. To me the man is just as responsible for "the problem" if thats how we choose to define it. The two (man & woman) made the decision/choice to do what they did regardless of any consequence. In many ways the man escapes responsibility by leaving it up to the woman. Its not fair to the woman in that respect, as a real man doesn't walk away from the tough choices of life & death. But he will always be in an inferior position on this. Many wish it wasn't so...but it is, just by the nature of it.

By the way, all children live in poverty. They are poor by definition...maybe we can fight over that ;-)

Cathartes Aura's picture

meh, I'll pass on "fighting" over definitions of internet words posted. . . well, for now anyway. 

I'll just answer from your final paragraph, re; the responsibility of men for pregnancies. . . in a perfect world, sexually active women would take responsibility for their sexual choices, including insisting on appropriate "protection" or more "creative" acts that don't feel degrading, nor result in exposure to pregnancy. . . but the culture promoted by the media, and porn, is reckless and immature, so people just drive headlong into the wall, at full speed, fingers crossed being the most "protection" used. . . somewhat exaggerating, yes, but I'm often amazed at how "thoughtless" sexually active folks are, men and women.

but then, maybe, not really.  many people are just big ole teenagers, indulging in "He Who Dies With The Most Toys WINS!" and "SHOP 'TIL YOU DROP" bumper-sticker lives, and like little kids, when they fall down & get an "ouchie" they have no idea how it happened, or at least that's what they tell whoever is silly enough to indulge their tales.

so yes, it would be lovely if "people" were more responsible, man & woman both - but culture wants kids to lie to & manipulate, so kids it is!   anyone acting responsibly is pretty much "borrrring!" - but in fact are the majority, heh.

for what it's worth, I've worked with, and around, mostly males all my life - and despite what they like to project to each other, for the most part they're caring, responsible creatures - as are most of the females I know - it's the "others" that foul the nest & the wanna-be control freaks in .gov that make more rules, with glee.

see ya round!