The Obama Administration

Harry Dresden

CptKemzik wrote: »

Dont forget that she also collected welfare under an assumed name - making her an ultimate hypocrite.

Which Libertarians defend to the death that since she paid taxes it's her's to collect anyway. This is a real trigger for them. They know if they don't successfully combat this critique they'll have to agree that she's a hypocrite.

edit: She definitely is a hypocrite on this issue btw.

Zephiran

Hahaha, oh wow. I didn't know she idolized a kidnapper/dismemberment-murderer. That's pretty extreme.

Reading the Wikipedia page on her stance on the matter just makes me want to telekinetically lobotomise myself and drool like a maniac, it's making me feel that stupid. Jesus fuck, I was getting kind of hungry too but after reading that I just feel sick.

AManFromEarth

218 Reasons to Vote for Obama:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/02/24/what-do-americans-think-of-obamas-performance-as-a-president/?feed=rss_home&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

The tumblr that linked me to this added four more things to the list:

219: Mitt Romney
220: Newt Gingrich
221: Ron Paul
222: Rick Santorum

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud

Atomic Ross wrote: »

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Atomic Ross wrote: »

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Atomic Ross wrote: »

BSoB wrote: »

PantsB wrote: »

Atomic Ross wrote: »

BSoB wrote: »

According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

I think its likely other factors come into play. Drug dealers are glamorized and seen as bad ass in a lot of the worst communities. Compare that to wearing a paper hat and being laughed at by peers. That's before you get to gangs who indoctrinate from early childhood.

The article I linked speculates that they do it because they have the irrational expectation that they will one day be the ones making $500k tax free.

It's just like every actor/musician/Minor-leaguer that thinks he's "paying his dues" and "any day now" he'll be rich.

So, multiply "bootstrap objectivism" x "almost no education whatsoever."

The irony is that liberals create more "bootstrapping" for the lower classes with education, access to training, medicare, social security etc than Republicans. To them "bootstrapping" only counts if you do all on your own with no help at all, which naturally fails unless people get very, very lucky. It's crazy.

It never fails to raise my ire to hear my cousin, a young man with a $100,000 private school education and a new Mercedes coupe purchased for him as a graduation present by his parents, rant and rail about how awesome Ron Paul and Libertarianism is.

Personally, I've always seen Libertarianism as an ideology the upper classes created to feel good about themselves and a guilt free reason to keep the status quo in tact. If they actually started being compassionate they would have to consciously think about others poorer than they are, how society is extremely fucked up for the lower classes and might have to emotionally deal with the consequences. It also reinforces the psychopaths in the upper classes, too. They can justify their behavior and recruit others to feel the same as they do so they're not lonely weirdo's.

My problem with actual Libertarians is the same problem with Evangelicals: they all cherry pick which parts of the source material they choose to follow while waving the banner of the whole text.

An honest Libertarian who followed objectivism in the manner Ayn Rand laid out would:
- hate churches
- advocate for gay rights
- advocate for broad civil rights
- support free market reforms to decrease barriers to entrepreneurship.


I don't know many libertarians that cop to those principles. Pretty much the opposite, in fact.

Amanda Marcotte just had a fantastic article on Libertarian ideals and the buying out of the Cato institute. What's that, you don't want the free market to turn your institute into a Koch brothers loudspeaker? I thought it was hilarious.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword

adytum

Ezra Klein on the same topic: washingtonpost.com/business/economy/why-would-koch-brothers-want-to-refine-cato-institute/2012/03/08/gIQAl0K1zR_story.html?hpid=z5

rayofash

Obamas waiving of the portion of the NDAA that would allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely was unconstitutional. Bush did this kind of thing all the time but the courts didn't challenge him on it because he replaced the judges with his own people. What could happen is the next president can undo it under the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and then it can be enacted.

AManFromEarth

rayofash wrote: »

Obamas waiving of the portion of the NDAA that would allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely was unconstitutional. Bush did this kind of thing all the time but the courts didn't challenge him on it because he replaced the judges with his own people. What could happen is the next president can undo it under the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and then it can be enacted.

How is it unconstitutional? As commander in chief he can direct the military and intelligence agencies on policy. Just because Congress says you can do a thing doesn't mean the President can't say "Yeah, but we're not going to."

The next president wouldn't have to play the constitution card to undo it, he/she could just say, assuming that year's NDAA has a similar clause, "Ok, follow through."

The NDAA gets changed every year, there's nothing written in stone about it. Hopefully next year Congress will have learned their lesson. I'm not holding my breath, but still.

nightmarenny

rayofash wrote: »

Obamas waiving of the portion of the NDAA that would allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely was unconstitutional. Bush did this kind of thing all the time but the courts didn't challenge him on it because he replaced the judges with his own people. What could happen is the next president can undo it under the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and then it can be enacted.

It is not unconstitutional. Bush used Signing Statements in a way that was illegal but Obama's use is well within his rights.

The next president if he so chooses can undo the ban but it has nothing to do with constitutionality. Just like an Executive action they can be changed on a whim. He doesn't need "grounds".

Tell me you're not blaming Obama for doing the one thing he could actually do to prevent those provisions in the NDAA from getting used.

rayofash

nightmarenny wrote: »

rayofash wrote: »

Obamas waiving of the portion of the NDAA that would allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely was unconstitutional. Bush did this kind of thing all the time but the courts didn't challenge him on it because he replaced the judges with his own people. What could happen is the next president can undo it under the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and then it can be enacted.

It is not unconstitutional. Bush used Signing Statements in a way that was illegal but Obama's use is well within his rights.

The next president if he so chooses can undo the ban but it has nothing to do with constitutionality. Just like an Executive action they can be changed on a whim. He doesn't need "grounds".

Tell me you're not blaming Obama for doing the one thing he could actually do to prevent those provisions in the NDAA from getting used.

He should have vetoed it.

Jacobkosh

new thread time, if one is warranted. it needs a good OP.