I think so too.

I guess I blend my political and social movements together.

A political system based around veganism would be interesting.

Define radical. I know a lot of my beliefs are pretty radical to most (i.e., abolitionist vegan).

I can't, actually.

I can't, actually.

Obama.

Bachmann signs pledge* which includes the benefits of slavery:

 

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.

Edited July 11, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

Bachmann on the benefits of slavery:

I don't understand why people criticize her.

Bachmann on the benefits of slavery:

Let's be clear...that's not a statement from her, that's one of those "Pledges" from some interest group that she's signed on to, and which someone is probably going to be fired for her having signed on to.

Let's be clear...that's not a statement from her, that's one of those "Pledges" from some interest group that she's signed on to, and which someone is probably going to be fired for her having signed on to.

 

Yeah I botched that. Still, she signed it.

 

BTW, just to emphasize how awful this is, it's not just incredibly racist but also completely inaccurate.

 

The plantation owners in America had complete freedom to buy and sell slaves. State laws gave slave marriages no legal protection and in these transactions husbands could be separated from their wives and children from their mothers. In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass claimed that in the part of Maryland where he was born: "to part children from their mothers at a very early age. Frequently, before the child has reached its twelfth month, its mother is taken from it, and hired out on some farm a considerable distance off."

Edited July 11, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

BTW loving the Ron Paul for President ads at the top of Soxtalk.

Not surprising.

Not surprising.

 

To be fair it's not that good of a question, at least imo. I'd like someone who sticks to their principles a hell of a lot more than Obama does (or maybe these really are his principles!), but not the insanity the GOP is currently engaged in.

I was more a fan of the first graph in that post.

I was more a fan of the first graph in that post.

 

Both sides are banking on the other taking the fall, though I'll probably lose all hope for this country if the "Democrats refuse to negotiate (and by negotiate we mean give us every single thing we demand, basically our entire party economic platform in one lump sum while getting absolutely nothing back), blame them!" line they're trotting out actually works.

Both sides are banking on the other taking the fall, though I'll probably lose all hope for this country if the "Democrats refuse to negotiate (and by negotiate we mean give us every single thing we demand, basically our entire party economic platform in one lump sum while getting absolutely nothing back), blame them!" line they're trotting out actually works.

I was referring to this.

 

I believe NSS and I had a discussion over the fact that I insisted elections were all about turning out your base and less about independents, to the point that base turnout decides just about everything.

Also not sure how to reconcile this:

 

 

with this:

 

 

or the Republican response with this: Failing to raise the debt limit will result in ~10% loss of GDP spending, launching us off the cliff into another recession.

 

Republican economics has turned into a hardline religious orthodoxy.

Edited July 11, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

I was referring to this.

 

I believe NSS and I had a discussion over the fact that I insisted elections were all about turning out your base and less about independents, to the point that base turnout decides just about everything.

We got our graphs from different places, apparently.

Also not sure how to reconcile this:

 

 

with this:

 

 

or the Republican response with this: Failing to raise the debt limit will result in ~10% loss of GDP spending, launching us off the cliff into another recession.

 

Republican economics has turned into a hardline religious orthodoxy.

 

I think people are adding the qualifier "without doing other things simultaneously" in their minds when answering that question.

I think people are adding the qualifier "without doing other things simultaneously" in their minds when answering that question.

 

That still doesn't change the disconnect between a majority of people saying it would result in "very serious" economic problems if we defaulted while also having a plurality of all respondents dominated by a supermajority of Republicans rejecting a simple debt ceiling hike to avert said problems.

I think people are adding the qualifier "without doing other things simultaneously" in their minds when answering that question.

I'm pretty sure that some of the Republicans here have said they wanted the government to default. Or at least they said something leading to that, prompting me to respond with the question "Do you want the government to default on its debt"...usually without getting an answer.

Obama the Republican, pushing to cut medicare and social security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/us/polit...iscal.html?_r=1

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

 

This morning's New York Times article similarly makes clear that it is the President who is demanding an even larger "deficit reduction" package than has previously been discussed. Headlined "Obama to Push for Wider Deal With G.O.P. on Deficit Cuts," the article reports that "President Obama has raised his sights and wants to strike a far-reaching agreement on cutting the federal deficit" and that he "wants to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought in earlier negotiations and seek perhaps twice as much over the next decade." This is all in pursuit of "an agreement that ma[kes] substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security -- programs that had been off the table." The President, as part of the package, is reportedly seeking some elimination of modest tax "loopholes" that benefit wealthy Americans to claim, absurdly, that there is "balanced" sacrifice.

Obama the Republican, pushing to cut medicare and social security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/us/polit...iscal.html?_r=1

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

Depends on the type of cuts. Strengthening the IPAB or adjusting the growth rate of OASDI I can consider depending on the numbers. There's talk though of him supporting raising the Medicare eligibility age, which is the type of thing that would have me joining you in not voting next year.

Depends on the type of cuts. Strengthening the IPAB or adjusting the growth rate of OASDI I can consider depending on the numbers. There's talk though of him supporting raising the Medicare eligibility age, which is the type of thing that would have me joining you in not voting next year.

 

Krugman echoes Greenwald's (perpetual) meltdown over Obama's policies.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/1...-that-into-you/

 

To paraphrase, at what point does "he's too weak" or "he gives in too easy" stop working and you have to say "he's not really very liberal at all?"

 

eta Krugman also lays into his speech here

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/1...l-flow-fallacy/

Edited July 12, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

Also not sure how to reconcile this:

 

 

with this:

 

 

or the Republican response with this: Failing to raise the debt limit will result in ~10% loss of GDP spending, launching us off the cliff into another recession.

 

Republican economics has turned into a hardline religious orthodoxy.

 

That is pretty funny after hearing about all of the ways that Obama won't compromise now.

That is pretty funny after hearing about all of the ways that Obama won't compromise now.

 

Why should he compromise. Congress is refusing to honor the debts it agreed to pay when it voted on them.