Wednesday, November 07, 2012

What Part Of "Yes We Can" Did You Not Understand?

The Future, as it must, has defeated The Past.

Obama winning is important. His presidency being both historic AND successful is important to the narrative of history. But, more immediately, American voters have - whether by intent or incident - protected the Supreme Court from anti-choice, anti-science nominees for another four years and maybe longer... NOTHING was more important than that.

However, other things of profound importance were either decided or are in the process of being decided tonight. Among them:

Puerto Rico has voted, for the first time, "YES" on a non-binding referendum stating that they wish to become the 51st full member-state of The United States of America. Both Obama and Romney were on record as saying that they support and would sign off on the change, but if this really does get to the U.S. Congress expect a massive fight from Republicans - the zealously anti-Hispanic Tea Party wing of the GOP will not support a predominantly-Latino Spanish-speaking territory becoming an American State. In a very real way, this could be the biggest thing that happened tonight.

Marijuana has been legalized or semi-legalized in at least three more states than before by solid margins. This is the beginning of the end for Marijuana prohibition.

When the next session begins, more Women will sit in the U.S. Senate than ever before.

One of those aforementioned women, Tammy Baldwin (Democrat, Wisconsin) is also the first openly-gay woman to be elected in U.S. Senate history.

Four states had gay marriage legalization ballot initiatives on their ballots. Previously, such initiatives have either lost or won AGAINST marriage-equality 30 times with no victories. Tonight, all four were affirmed. The tide is changing.

Here in Massachusetts, archetypal preening alpha-male bully Scott Brown was trounced by Progressive firebrand Elizabeth Warren - kiss my actual working-class Boston guy ASS, Scotty.

The down side to all of this is that there will be no "wakeup call" to the Republican Party. The spin tomorrow morning will be that Romney lost because he was too moderate, not a "real" Christian and not a "real" conservative; and the push will be on to run a true believer next time. They will only become more intractable, more fundamentalist and more committed.

But, still, little by little we are improving. With each battle won over the forces of "tradition," anachronism and superstition; persons of open-mind get one step closer to building the Superior America that we both need and - to be frank - deserve for the 21st Century.


The Mason said...

Funny-named black guy re-elected, pot is legal in Colorado, 3 states have approved marriage equality, Santa is real and he's in DC handing out favors. AMERICA, bitches! *drops mic*

Lido said...

to quote Gandalf on the matter of Puerto Rico "events have now been set in motion which cannot be undone"

Devin said...

This election represents what I love about America. We're not always right and we're not always smart, but there is a consistent sense of progress that comes whenever elections like this happen.

Sure, we may get thrown back a few years every once in a while, but overall, compared to where we've been, America has made great strides (not saying that other countries haven't, though).

Samuel Newsome said...

Bob, for what it's worth, I think your "Message to Young Liberals," really did some good. Less than ten thousand views could still have been five thousand extra votes or so. If nothing else it helped get my butt out the door. Good work and here's hoping for four years of progress.

Ronin08 said...

Almost all swing states going for Obama, voter-driven gay marriage victories, medical marijuana victories, some kickass people like Elisabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin heading for the Senate---I think America may have kicked a little ass tonight.

Nathan said...

I don't foresee any nasty comments or arguments on this post at all*Sarcasm

The Mason said...


Nasty comments don't matter right now. James and his ilk can't ruin this. Science and reason has beaten back ignorance and superstition. It's been a wild night, but we won the day!

Daniel said...

I'm not convinced that the republicans will run a "true believer" next time. Isn't Chris Christie their supposed favorite for 2016? He is no Gingrich or Santorum. The only 2 things I really know about him are that he put a muslim on his cabinet while shooting down racist comments about his decision, and he looked past partisan bickering to work with and eventually thank the president for his help with Sandy.

I don't know whether the whole Sandy thing will mean that Gov. Christie is no longer the favorite for 2016, but in my mind he is a heck of a lot better than Ryan or Perry or any of the other "serious" republican contenders

Andrew said...

I'm quite pleased with the results of our local elections (WA, I voted for legalization of marijuana and recognition of same-sex marriage), and with most of the results around the country and in the Senate (I voted Cantwell, who won in a landslide). And, perhaps above all, I'm very happy that Obama's victory will keep a couple more Scaliae away from the Supreme Court, though the only retirees will be a liberal and a moderate, so I doubt much will change. At least Roe remains off the table for another ten years or so (not that there was much likelihood of that).

That said, I can't see a future that isn't full of more House obstructionism and Senate filibusters. Whether the Dems have 51 or 59 senators, it doesn't matter one bit the way the GOP runs things. Obama will be lucky to get anything done, and I don't see the Dems winning the next general either, since the GOP will have a far, far, FAR (as in decent) candidate next time, unless they're going to take their advice from Limbaugh instead of Rove. The Tea Party did well enough in the House, but I still think they suffered a greater defeat overall; moderate Republicans/conservatives should seriously reconsider if they're worth including in their platforms.

Maybe the future does beats the past, today, but I don't think much will change in the medium term. maybe the Republican party will finally wake up to how things have changed (like they shoulda four years ago), but I don't know if that's gonna be a good thing or not. Are they going to become a more inclusive, less-radical party (maybe espouse Federalism without all that reactionary populism), or are they just going to get smarter at crafting their image next time?

But again, hurrah for the many progressive triumphs on the local level. Hurrah for the increased recognition of gay marriage, and hurrah for getting this country a little bit further away from the drug war. Demographics will continue to march the country's politics forward, but our political calcification will remain. Maybe the Republicans will learn to play to the middle in deed as well as word, and give moderates a reasonable choice in four years. But I'm not putting any money down on that.

P.S. For the record, I didn't vote for Obama this time, so his victory isn't as much mine as it is yours, Bob. But of the only two realistic choices, he was by FAR the more preferable for me, so I do share in your delight. Congratulations.

Daniel R said...


I've had an... interesting view of America throughout my life, as a Mexican I mean. Mostly shifting back and forth between; endearingly arrogant older brother who showcases his affection by lightly punching you in the shoulder, threateningly unstable bucket of boiling gasoline, or 'that country that could annex us with a single thought'

But DAMN! Thats a lot to accomplish in a single night.

America, you go ahead and be about as arrogant as you want for the next few years. You fucking deserve it!

Yay Obama! :D

Taylor said...

Guys, quick note: You're wrong about Marijuana. It is not legal in any state in the union. The Supreme Court decided this issue and is legally supreme.

States have no authority to just ignore this decision, just like they don't have authority to ignore desegregation.

Aiddon said...

I wonder if it'd be a little arrogant of me to go up to every dickheads who wished Romeny would get elected for all the wrong reasons and go "HA!" to rub it in their smug, little, butthurt faces?

Anyway, big things, especially PR possibly becoming the 51st state within my lifetime. I can only imagine the amount of fuckheads that would have a stroke from it.

Zeno said...

That's it, I'm moving to Rapture.

Andrew said...


Remember that 2008 was supposed to be Hillary vs. Rudy, so I wouldn't put much stock in early-early-early predictions.

Cristie would be far better a candidate than Romney (and especially than most of those Romney beat), but I think there's a good reason why so many qualified moderate Republicans sat this one out. It wasn't fear of Obama, it was a calculated move based on what Republican voters were looking for this time, in the first election since the emergence of the "Tea Party" into the mainstream. 2012 was the wrong year to be a Republican moderate. Romney demonstrated that amply. You think Rubio or Daniels would have wanted to twist themselves in a knot to appease a far-right that felt Obama was so vulnerable that they could have run anybody and won?

They'll be back, and hopefully (I think...) GOP primary voters will have learned their lesson this time.

As for Gingrich...ugh...I still blame him for everything bad that has happened in our national politics since 1994. Compromise becoming a bad thing, always. Bi-partisanship became a mere buzzword, pleasant on the ear but verboten in Congress. Arch-conservative, litmus test Republicans becoming the norm in the House. Madness, polarization risen to suicidal extremes. I miss Bob Dole. I miss George H.W. Bush. I miss Reagan even (though I was kinda young at the time, his kind would be very welcome among the GOP today). Gingrich effed that all up. Hopefully not forever.

JPArbiter said...

Bob, can we get a source on the Puerto Rico Story?

Andrew said...


You raise a good point. But local change precedes federal change. The more states that enact legalization (even if only on the books), the more pressure the Supreme Court will be under to revise its own policy.

And according to Gonzalez vs. Raich, states aren't even allowed to recognize the legality of medical marijuana. But that's rarely prosecuted. It's still a clear step towards full legalization, or at least of federal recognition of states' individual rights to set their own rules on legalization.

Anonymous said...


We need Teddy Roosevelt again.

Nathan said...

@The Mason
Actually being from Wisconsin, it was actually news to me today that TB is gay. It was nice to have a election that didn't revolve around her being gay and more about the issues.

Andrew said...


Hell yeah we need a Teddy again. Back then, the Republican Party was in many ways the more progressive party.

But that's not gonna happen. Teddy was a phenomenon, a guy so charismatic and brilliant that he couldn't be constrained by his party (only moderated). Nowadays, the party IS the candidate. The candidate is just the mouthpiece. Or the hair. Or the skin color, perhaps.

Sylocat said...

Wisconsinite here. Cheering at sending the first open lesbian to the US Senate. I remember my parents taking me to campaign rallies for her way back when she was still just a district councilwoman, and then our representative, and now a senator.

This almost makes up for losing Feingold.

I am also taking some cathartic thrills at finally smacking down Tommy Thompson, after fighting that douchebeck for Celestia-only-knows how many years. The guy was like one of those burrs that just shifts to another part of your clothes every time you try to brush it off.

I too am intrigued by the Puerto Rico thing, though. I wonder how many EVs they get?

David (The Pants) said...

I'm from MN, and we did not legalize gay marriage. (I'd like to but) What we actually did was prevent marriage from being defined at one man and one woman.

Had the amendment passed, we'd not even get to vote for legalizing gay marriage in the future. So, yeah, clearing up that misconception.

biomechanical923 said...

The Red states still got away with a little bit of bullshit. Oklahoma voted to ban Affirmative Action.
North Dakota decided not to criminalize animal cruelty.
A handful of other red states got a way with a couple of their typical union-busting and anti-teacher propositions.

Regardless, overall, I'm very fucking pleased with this election.

I disagree with you, however, that the Repubs are going to become more fundamentalist and fringe-y.

Earlier I was watching the live coverage of Romney Campaign Headquarters. One of the news reporters literally said "Maybe the Republican Party needs to re-evaluate their position on social issues like Women's Rights"

(No shit, sherlock.)

While some random pundit certainly isn't representative of an entire party, I think it illustrates that the party realizes they need to abdicate certain social ideologies.

...Then he went on to blame Black people and Latinos for the reason why the White vote is not the only one that counts anymore... failing miserably.

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile you also have conservative nuts pulling some wins. Like Louisiana becoming frighteningly pro-gun rights.

RKissoon said...

First things first, the Puerto Rico issue is not decided yet. Although they elected a pro-statehood governor, the plebiscite they had to vote on seeking statehood was awkward to say the least. It consisted of two stages, wherein the first vote was on "do you want to change the status quo [regarding being a territory]" and then the second stage was "would you rather be a state, an independent country, or a sovereign entity [which is less than a territory but more than independent]?" This way of framing the issue creates a lot of confusion and doesn't accurately translate the will of Puerto Ricans.

Furthermore, the this does not mean they will be a state. The constitution states that Congress has to accept their request for statehood, which it may not. As for the issue of electoral votes, that depends on whether the Congress changes the rules regarding the size of the Electoral College. Now it's restricted to 538, but will probably be increased. For comparison though, Puerto Rico has almost as many citizens as Oklahoma, which has 7 Electoral votes.

Regarding legalization of marijuana and gay marriage: neither of these is recognized by the Federal government, and would likely only be recognized through Supreme Court decisions. For what it's worth, I think prohibition of marijuana and gay marriage is unconstitutional, but the Court would probably only agree with me if Obama got the chance to replace one of the conservative Justices, which seems unlikely right now. They might try to wait until they can secure replacements who are more in line with their positions, such as poor Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been doing.

Finally, I fear that I agree with Bob on his second to last point: there is a coming civil war in the GOP. There will be those who look back at the last four years, and think "We ran the more moderate candidate back-to-back in McCain and Romney, and we lost. We might as well run the out-and-out fundamentalist-Christian-Right guy, and the rest of the country be damned."

Then there are others who are serious politicians, who are willing to play the game, who will tack more to the center. Think post-first-debate Romney, maybe with a more libertarian bent. For example, Lindsey Graham said “If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn’t conservative enough I’m going to go nuts. We’re not losing 95 percent of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we’re not being hard-ass enough.” LINDSEY GRAHAM, Republican senator out of South Carolina, said that.

The funny thing is, the coming new progressive age will result in the absorption of the growing Libertarian and Green parties by the moderate Republicans and Democrats, respectively. In the modern two party system, parties do no rise and fall, platforms do.

Nixou said...

Also: Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin getting clobered: if I may express some blunt and crass schadenfreude, for once, its the old dicks who got fucked, and they had it coming to them.

And I wholeheartedly agree with Paul Krugman: the fact that Nate Silver has been proven (once again) right against the "predictions" farted by the pundit class is one positive step toward the Reckoning of the Nerds.

Nixou said...

Also, I forgot to add:

"The down side to all of this is that there will be no "wakeup call" to the Republican Party. The spin tomorrow morning will be that Romney lost because he was too moderate, not a "real" Christian and not a "real" conservative; and the push will be on to run a true believer next time. They will only become more intractable, more fundamentalist and more committed."

At the same time, the GOP strategists will conclude that since the sheeple can't be as docile as expected, more effort to rig the results must be made next time. Expect more campains of voters suppression and more skullduggery from the Ohio secretary of state.

R said...

Over here in England, we're just looking on approvingly, like Obi Wan and Yoda at the end of RotJ. Good job America: for all your flaws, you did the right thing and voted for progress, positive change and a scientific future. We're proud of you kid ;-)

Jake said...

Obama is open to the idea that vaccines cause Autism. That doesn't sound pro-science to me.

Cyrus said...

Congratulations America and thanks for keeping a lid on The Stupid for a few more years! :)

@Jake: I'm curious, did Obama actually take action against the distribution of vaccines based on any autism-related concerns?

Makoto ONeill said...


Anonymous said...

Congratulations Bob, we get four more years of war and violations of civil liberties. Hope you're happy.

Anonymous said...

Bob, I'm still waiting for a LEGITIMATE answer: defend the kill list, defend the drone strikes, defend keeping Gitmo open, defend indefinite detention, and defend all the other ways Obama is as bad as Bush & Romney. If you're an intelligent person as you claim to be, then why do you weasel out of explaining why you support these atrocious policies? Answer me, coward.

Jackass Mask said...

@Anonymous 5:28am

"Answer me, coward."

... It's silly because you're anonymous.

Nathan Lickliter said...

@Anonymous 5:28am

Do us all a favor and just stop. Look, I consider myself a Libertarian, too. But what you're doing is just sad. So, just stop.

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to stop. Bob needs to own up to his intellectual dishonesty. So come on Chipman; defend the kill list (and don't pull that "conspiracy" bullshit - it exists!)

Ted said...


Shut up. Please. I thought that maybe seeing Obama's reelection might have knocked some sense into, but I guess it didn't. Do you wanna know why Obama couldn't get much done over the past four years? It's because people like you were constantly whining about anything he ever even attempted to do. Now that he has four more years in office with no reelection to hold him back, he can do whatever the hell he wants for four years, and people like you can whine all you want and he won't give a shit. In order for this country to function, we need to support our president, even if we didn't vote for him ourselves. So sit down, shut up, and leave Bob alone. I'm NOT dealing with you spamming this blog for four more fucking years. My brain can't handle that much stupidity.

Cyrus said...

James, have you ever stopped to think what the alternatives to "teh kill list!!!1" would look like? If so, I'd be curious to hear them from you.

Oh and do log in before you call other people cowards, it's just, you know, intellectual honesty.

MST3KROM said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MST3KROM said...


Here is the answer you deserve:

Fallen Angel said...

I think everyone here agrees that this has gone on long enough, Mr Bevan. Your conduct has only gotten worse over the past weeks. You've thrown around unfounded accusations of facism (do you even know what that word means?), you've continued to harass Bob's colleagues on Twitter to get to him, and even wished Bob lose his job and get thrown out on the street. You keep going on about how "the lesser of two evils is still evil", but the way you've been behaving is nothing short of despicable. No one owes you anything. The only reason Bob isn't responding to you is because he's doing what anyone else would do to trolls like you: He's IGNORING you.

I think it's your turn to do some defending, James: defend your behaviour. Defend the fact that you've been harassing people on Twitter and spamming them with your immature bullshit. Defend your accusations of fascism that were spectacularly uncalled for. Defend the fact that you've contributed NOTHING meaningful, constructive, or interesting to the comments section ever since you first started this shit.

Enough is enough.

Joey said...

Well, I for one am completely satisfied with the elections last night.


Eze said...

I just want to see where it all goes, really. Now that this is over, we can hear about Bob's thoughts on Disney/Lucasfilms because you know he has something to say.

ANImaniac said...

In spite of what I said in the comments for your last American Bob video (regarding Obama and Detroit). I do believe that Obama is the better man for the job, and honestly with some of the retarded shit Romney & Co had been spewing (about Woman and Rape, about single mothers) I was truly afraid of what would happen to this country if he won.

I'm still finding it funny that the biggest election 2012 story seems to be about how 2 states legalized the recreational uses of marijuana.
It fun to see where everyone's minds at, I've already read that the issue will be on Michigan's 2014 Ballot.

Roderick said...

Something else we saw in the 2012 presidential race was the increasing demographic changes in the US. Obama won re-election despite losing the white vote by a whopping 20 points.

In a United States where white has gone from 'majority' to 'plurality', and may not even hold onto that in our lifetimes, the Republican party has some serious soul searching to do in terms of who they are and who they hope to represent if they want to remain relevant.

Adam Meyers said...

I'll admit, I still don't understand the accusations of the Republican party being nothing but racist white guys. Is the belief really that about 50% of the American populous are racist white people? Because I keep seeing black/women republicans running for office, and getting shot down by the Left for having the audacity to break the carefully controlled narrative that only white men are republicans.

But that's my only rebuttal. I also hope for a more moderate Republican party in the future, at least on social issues.

Trilliandi said...

Hee hee hee, I was worried for a bit that Obama's victory might've made him too mollified to say anything, but I was wrong! There's no stopping the crazy train that is James. XD

Roderick said...

"I also hope for a more moderate Republican party in the future, at least on social issues."

You just answered your own question. The Republican's hardline anti-progressive stances on social issues makes them attractive to racist, sexist, homophobic white guys. These unsavory folks then noisily proclaim both their republicanism/conservatism and their racism/sexism/homophobia, cementing that image among those outside of the Republican ranks.

As that image is cemented, more and more moderates leave the party, more and more more actual racists, sexists, and homophobes are attracted to the party, and those already there grow more vocal thanks to the echo chamber effect, having more extremists to cheer them on and fewer moderates to talk them down.

Nixou said...

"Obama won re-election despite losing the white vote by a whopping 20 points"
The white male vote you mean

"In a United States where white has gone from 'majority' to 'plurality"
Whites are still by far a majority. It's the angry at losing their ethnically locked privileges subgroup which has shrinked to the point of making it impossible to decide the election on their own.

Roderick said...

- "The white male vote you mean"

nope. Obama lost the white vote overall by 20 points, despite doing well with women in general:

- "Whites are still by far a majority."

You are correct, I was in error. However, whites are no longer a majority of new births in the country, though they remain the plurality, and that demographic change will be reflected in the overall population within our lifetime.

Darren said...

I'm glad we won :D
Now can I please have a real Job.

I'm tired of working at Starbucks as a college graduate with 2 BAs for the past four years D:

Adam Meyers said...

@ Roderick

You say that, but every Republican I know has a very low tolerance for racists/sexists/etc. In fact, I've yet to meet a single racist/sexist republican. Maybe that's just geography, but I've yet to actually meet this 'conservative menace' I keep hearing about, so you must excuse me that I don't believe they're nearly as numerous as you claim.

Instead, all the Republicans I know voted the way they did because they wanted economic reform, and bemoan Obama not for his social views, but for the fear of an America that continues to spiral into debt. Look up Larry Correia's blog to see what, at least in my neck of the woods, is the pretty typical Republican view and response to the election.

Adam Meyers said...

I understand that one person's "Class Warfare" is another person's "Help the Poor," just like one person's "War on Women" is another person's "Personal Responsibility," but still, I run into very few homophobic/sexist/racist Republicans, especially compared to the numbers I keep hearing are SUPPOSED to exist. For example, most of the ones I know couldn't care less how we define marriage as long as no one's threatening to sue Churches for teaching their doctrine. The vibe is actually quite Libertarian "Government shouldn't be telling anyone how to live their day-to-day lives, so I won't ask it to make you illegal if you don't ask it to make me illegal."

But again, maybe that's just Utah.

Adam Meyers said...

And, by the way, I really recommend Larry Correia. Think of him as the Republican version of Bob- an intelligent person with no tolerance for ineducation, idiocy, and bigotry, just coming from a different economic model. And no tolerance for people who inaccurately claim he's from the 'rape' party, and the prose of a best-selling SF writer to back up his points.

Roderick said...

You asked how people got the impression of Republicans that they have. That's how. When I turn on Fox News to get the other side's opinion, and I'm treated to a commentator telling me that brown people are having more babies than white people, and this is awful, and its my duty as a white person to have more white babies to save America from the brown menace, - which is exactly what happened, not even something I made up, I was just sitting there with my jaw hanging open listening to this guy - then yeah, "Racist" is the label that gets stamped on that commentator, that channel, and the demographic it serves.

I'm not saying all Republicans are racist. I was raised Republican, my father is a Republican. I cast my first votes for Republican candidates. It's the values of tolerance and acceptance, of compassion and reciprocity, and yes even of personal responsibility that my Republican father taught me that have over the last decade driven me away from the Republican party.

biomechanical923 said...

@ Roderick.

I can testify to this. I heard the exact same commentator, and I referenced it in my own post up above ^

Adam Meyers said...

I'd argue that's the problem with the system we have that drives the country into 2 groups, and two groups alone.

Do I vote for the party that shares my economic views and work against the bigots inside it? Or do i vote for the party who's economics I fear and work against the bigots (different issues, same bigotry) on that side?

Or do I vote for a third party with no chance of winning, but who shares my views that government is about economics and should stay out of regulating social issues at all?

Nathan said...

The best part of last night was when Karl Rove was losing his mind and tried CONVINCE FOX that there is a chance that Obama didn't win Ohio.

Cyrus said...

@Adam Meyers: I can sympathize to the extent that there needs to be a long overdue house cleaning in the GOP. By tomorrow, every one of these sane republicans you describe should stand up and proclaim: "Fuck Gingrich's stance on compromise! Fuck the Tea Party! Fuck the fundies! Fuck Fox and the pundits!"

And if things work out the other way, well, I suppose we should at least get some entertainment out of the freak show that will be Palin/Santorum 2016, or whatever true believers the rotten remains of a once relevant party props up against Obama's successor.

Roderick said...

The republican party is still relevant. They expanded their control of the House, and the popular vote was split right down the middle.

They're staring down the barrel of what Republican strategists should recognize as some very troubling demographic trends. With their poor showing among women, youth, and non-whites, they are teetering on the edge of losing an entire generation of voters.

But even if they do, they're still a force to be reckoned with among the current generation, and their financial backing is absolutely huge. They may need to change gears to stay relevant in the future, but they're sure as hell still relevant now.

Adam: I used to feel similarly to you, but the Bush presidency recent Republican budget proposals have convinced me that they're no better than the Democrats on financial responsibility. I may not be completely 'on board' with the whole Democrat deal, but there is basically nothing left in the Republican platform that I can still sympathize with.

Watcher7689 said...

Congradulations America! We did it! Hats off to the President. Whatever happens, I am excited about what the future will bring....

I kinda also want to take this time, in the mist of the President's victory, to offer an apology/admit something. When I recently converted to Catholicism a few years ago, I thought that I had to "toe the line" on that Church's stnaces on various issues. In fact, in my attempt to defend the Church, I may I have even come to kinda see what I thought was the theoretical logic in their ideas. Since that time, I have come to see the error of my ways. On this very blog back many months ago, under a different screenmane, I tried to defend the positions of the "pro-life" movement. Unfourntaly, I came to see that I felt wrong and callous being inflexibly "pro-life", and that my own views on how to try and make the pro-life dream not a disaster required things the conservatives pushing "pro-life" policies wont do. Looking back, after much reading and thought on all the claims the "pro-life" side makes, I dont feel proud of having supported that side. I never trolled anyone (though I was over sensitive to you, Moviebob, on at lesat two occastions), but the fact that I held the unflexible views I did makes me hope I did so because I tend to like black and white rules, rather than me having a darker, callous side. I have since changed my screenname out of embarrisment for having identified myself with those ideas. I will say this though, there are pro-lifers who are honestly not....well I highly recomend Libby Anne's article "How I lost Faith in the Pro-Life Movement". While I had given up on that side before reading it, its a moving account that I identify with.

I hope what I just did does not seen arrogant or full of myself. Since becoming one of those "liberal Catholics" who many "real, faithful Catholics" want to see driven out of the RCC, I have felt ashamed of my past actions, even if I never called anyone names or was dismissive of the arguments of people who disagreed with me. I also deeply respect you all, so I felt bad. In the wake of the President's victory, I kinda just felt like maybe this would be best/most relevant place on Moviebob's wall to speak. Please know that this ex-pro-lifer is not saddened by The Presidents win but overjoyed.

James T said...

Adam, I will look up Correia. As for the question about racism, sexism, etc., I would like to shed some potential light on the subject. Negative views of any particular 'other' are not the same as outright rejection. Think of a sexist man who dearly loves and cares for his wife. These men exist, they have existed, but on the surface examination they create a paradox. After all, how can a man who values his wife above all be sexist? There is a pervasive fear that I pick up on when talking to conservative relatives about politics and Obama in particular. Who is he /really/? This view isn't sharedin regards to other politicians, and if I ask what they mean, why Obama, why his background, they get flustered, confused, irritated. I think, just watching for such things with a more critical eye, I'm more able to see them. On the flip side, I have little doubt they are more attuned to see someone like me glaze over, say Obama's record on detainees. Our biases are most certainly there. It's effectively identifying them that's diffcult. The easiest example I have is gays. Several people I know have said they're not homophobic, the have gay friends (and do), but bristle at the mere mention of gay marriage and laugh at the idea of a man with another man.

Matt said...

I voted for rommney on economic principals, even if I had reservations about him in social matters. The reality is, no matter who won, they now face the biggest battle possible. Obama now has to acomplish what he promised, he already has I major controversy to battle, libya, and the east coast is stil a wreck. Add the economic struggle, and obama has his work cut out for him. Rommney would have had the same issues to fight, so little has changed.

That being said, the democrats better pray that obama is succesful, cause if he fails, he may be the end of the democratic party.

If he fails, in 2016, all the gop has to do is link obama and his failures to the dems, and the will sweep all three elections, house, senate,and president.

And it will shatter any chance the dems have for at least 8, if not 16.

Obama is already considered the most devisive pres ever, if he cant get this country together and back on track, his failure will be the end of the democratic party.

Nixou said...

"If he fails, in 2016, all the gop has to do is link obama and his failures to the dems, and the will sweep all three elections, house, senate,and president."

Yeah: that was the all idea behind the GOP obstructionism: let's sabotage everything Obama does so when the recovery fail to show up in 2012, we'll take back everything.
Worked splendidly

Andrew said...


Libya is done with. Given the scale of presidential concerns, that was a non-issue.

Also, the Democratic party is far, far more flexible than the GOP is, and is a lot less likely to go through a platform restructuring in the next 10 years or so. Its platform and appeal is based on multiculturalism (America is getting more multicultural), women's issues (women are becoming ever more prominent a voice in politics and the economy), and secularity (the country is growing more and more irreligious).

You overstate what could happen if the GOP wins in four years, even if the economy doesn't recover and the moderate voters give the Republican a nod. And I still think the GOP has a good chance of winning in four years, if they play the next election intelligently and keep the firebrands and hopeless populists away from the party's core message. The Dems are far better suited to long-changing demographic and political conditions than the GOP are, and thus, they have a far better chance of surviving a disastrous election and being completely thrown out of power.

Adam Meyers said...

@James T.

Alright. Larry is the author of Monster Hunter International, so there is a lot of personal and book-related posts as well. However, just like Bob, he can't resist going into politics at times, so there's plenty of those too.

Zeno said...

It is politically impossible for this nation's government to fix the economy, so don't feel bad if you voted for Romney anyways. The fact that the Ryan budget, while being hopelessly too timid to make even a dent in the debt, was called "extreme" should make that obvious.

Matt said...

To be honest, normally id agree, but whats set this secnario apart is expectations. Obama didnt beat rommney onhis accomplishments or economic ability, but on emotion and on rommney not being agressive enough when compared to obama.

Obama didnt beat rommney, rommney being timid beat rommney.
Now, the dems have a strong base but like it or not, its already erroding, and there media strangle hold is falling apart, as fox news still dominates the ratngs even as tradtional media declines, heck I said that in a video I made in rsspone to an american bob video recently.

If obama fails, his failure wont just end the dems in 2016, but youll see reps, pundits, all his oppenents will pounce on it to make the dems look like fools and incompitents, and fox will make the other news media out to be democrat lackeys, not that it isnt true, but fox will simply have more justfication for the claim.

In 2008, the midterms had the democrats running from obamas name as the reps and tea party closed on them to take the house and deadlock the senate. Now the dems are full commited to the next 4 years, no more blaming bush, no more excuses.

They either deliver on the promises and secure dominance for 20 years, or fail, and get destroyed in 2016.

Anyone with any understanding of history knows this to be true.

Matt said...

Also in regards to libya, 4 dead americans is never a none issue especially with the info fox news keep digging up. Some may hate them, but on libya, they led the way in finding the truth

biomechanical923 said...

The only reason Fox has higher ratings than anyone else is because they're the only Right-biased "news" channel that broadcasts nationwide. Meanwhile, neutral, moderate, and Left-biased news networks are fragmented among many different sources (CNN, MSN, HLN).

Combine that with the fact that the average age of the Republicans is about 10-15 years older than the average Democrat, and this could explain why an older, less tech-savvy audience would be slightly more likely get their "news" from the TV, rather than the internet.

In other words, just because Fox news got the biggest slice of the ratings pie, doesnt mean that Republicans own the majority of the entire pie.

Anonymous said...

Yo Bob, I know you're out there, so answer me: defend the drone strikes. You talk so much about the future, but the innocent people killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan don't HAVE a future. Answer, I want to know how much of a sociopath you really are.

Andrew said...


You're free to interpret the election results however you want. But claiming that "the other side" only won because your side just didn't try hard enough is silly. Over $1 billion dollars were spent trying to win it for the GOP, and Romney was only one cog of that massive machine. It's not his party, he was just the party's choice for front man. And if Romney was such a terrible candidate, why did he win the primaries? Where were the GOOD Republican candidates, the ones (I'm sure) you think would have beaten Obama handily? You can throw Romney under the bus if you want and claim it's all his fault, but doing so absolves the rest of the party - the Akins, the Limbaughs, the Arpaios - of any responsibility for tarnishing the GOP's appeal that they lost to a very vulnerable incumbent. And if you want to see the GOP win again, you should resist the urge to take that easy way out.

Just where is the Democratic Party's base eroding?

Your third paragraph, with respect, I'm not going to go too deeply into. You clearly have a very different idea (ideal?) of just how fragile the Democratic party is, and for some reason, you think that FOX News can still hurt the Dems' appeal. The people who watch FOX already think the Dems are incompetents and worse and always will; FNC has nowhere to go from there.

And, again with respect, your last sentence is utterly meaningless without being placed in context. You can end any argument with "and anyone with any sense knows that I'm right", and it doesn't make your argument any more true. It only makes it look like YOU aren't convinced yourself, so you fall back on a lazy, hazy statement of absolute fact that is supposedly incontrovertible and which supports you utterly.

Democratic senators weren't running away from Obama this time, and they picked up several seats. The Republican party picked up a couple new seats in the House, but after losing ground in the Senate and failing to unseat a vulnerable president, they clearly lost this election. So where does that put the Tea Party, and the GOP in general?

Anonymous said...

@ Anon James

I am afraid I shall require a source for these supposed drone strikes, my good sir.

For as we all know, the onus of the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. You have been claiming Obama is 'as bad or worse' than Bush since time immemorial, but I have yet to see any sources cited for these diatribes.

So please, indulge a rational skeptic and source dat shit.

The Almighty Narf said...

@ Bob

"Obama winning is important."

No it wasn't. Obama's entire political career has been entirely inconsequential and will in all likely hood continue to be so.

Congratulations. You've maintained the status quo.

"...expect a massive fight from Republicans"

....Why? That doesn't even make sense.

Jake said...


Anonymous said...

@ James

As somebody that knows little about libertarianism and sees you as an experienced political expert of the highest caliber, I have the following questions that demand your sage council:

* Name the policies that Gary Johnson plans to implement without bringing up the supposed policies of Obama and Romney that he won't continue. From the way you talk, his platform one of sitting in the chair and preventing people from pushing the "send drone strike into civilian area" and "assassination" buttons, which means you could elect an ornery gorilla to do the same thing. What makes Johnson better than that gorilla?

* You talk a lot about innocent people dying abroad, so I assume you hold a strong attachment to the life of others. At the same time, libertarian doctrine holds that the government should scale down or cut nearly all social support. There are millions of people too impoverished and disadvantaged to live without government support. Turning them away is as much a death sentence as a drone strike, but instead of being unintentional collateral damage, it is now a knowing, deliberate action. There is no sect of libertarianism that does not carry this doctrine. This means one of three things: you are not actually a libertarian, you selectively hold the lives of some higher than others, or you are throwing the accusation of drone strikes killing civilians in a cheap attempt at shock value. Which of these is it?

* In cutting social support, the crime rate will rise exponentially due to the desperation of the disadvantaged masses. Explain to me how you plan to offset this without expanding government powers.

* Explain to me your position about abortion. The libertarian handbook is vague in a way I assume is meant to be interpretive so neither side is alienated, so I want your interpretation. Is a blank slate of self-unaware cells a living being by your standards? If so, I will assume that makes you anti-abortion. Now, depending on how you define "life", one could also argue that preventing the possibility of impregnation is just as much a death sentence for the hypothetical child as physically removing it from the fetus. Would you support a ban on contraceptives in order to not only preserve life, but also the possibility of life? Would forcing a mother incapable of caring for her child be acceptable even if it means the inevitable of one or both or would you support expanding government spending to provide orphanages?

* Let's not forget there are plenty of medical conditions that make pregnancy a life-threatening situation, with many carrying a 100 percent certainty of death for the mother. Whose life do you prioritize and why? Do you choose the life of the mother because she has life experiences worth preserving or the life of the baby because it has more years to live? If the life of both is of importance to you, would you support expanding the governmental powers to ban sex among those with known medical conditions? How would you enforce that without expanding surveillance spending and police authority? How does that fit within your libertarian philosophy of smaller government and more personal freedom?

* Define "fascism". Explain at least three details that most fascist regimes have in common. Give me three examples of fascist regimes, of which only one can have ties to the Axis powers. After doing so, explain with citations how Obama's policies resemble them.

* With most corporations guilty of exploiting the masses, how would a libertarian government with most of its powers scaled back prevent the resurgence of the 18th century robber baron?

If you are pressed for time, answering just one of these questions is fine by me. Everybody else, please, do not answer these questions for him.

Joey said...

With all of these talks about drone strikes and what not, i gotta ask, who actually makes the decisions for drone strikes? I have little to no belief that the president is the final, arbitrary word on drone strikes.

What about civilian casualties caused by drone strikes? Or civilian casualtes in general? Can these numbers be compared to numbers collected during the Bush Administration? I believe that the actual numbers are being blown out of proportion by James and others, but I and possibly James too, have no idea where to find a reliable and official source.

Ralphael said...

James, shut the fuck up already about the Drone strikes.

Almost everyone who has commented so far are too fucking stupid to be helped.

The fact that Obama hasn't been impeached for Benghazi or Fast in the Furious just proves how simple minded Obama Bots are.

There is no hope for humanity.

Fuck all.

Megabyte said...

@Matt You talk about these media pundits like they haven't shown their colors already.

They have... and currently enjoy the lowest confidence ratings they have ever had. And it will only get worse for them.

As for the Tea Party... Bob may be happy to see it's likely to dissolve now.... and oddly enough if it does, this election will have a big part of why. If what I heard is true, Pelosi won't be a leader in the Dem's much longer... and it was pretty much her actions that spawned the anger and the movement. If she's gone, it will die with her... mission accomplished.

Course if Im wrong, expect the movement to still go on. And I wish them the best of luck. (Seriously, Im no Obama supporter, but Ill trade you a third term for her getting kicked out of office any day!)

Andrew said...


The Tea Party isn't going anywhere. It's not going to take over the GOP (the party establishment has the money, corporate connections, and all major Republican powerbrokers), or split into its own party, it's just gonna be a catch-all term for that wing of the Republican Party, to be trotted out whenever they feel like playing up their angry grassroots.

Joey said...

I am absolutely certain that the current president has not committed any crimes while in office, although if you can show me examples, as well as said documented laws that Obama has broken, I will be glad to retract my statement.

Jake said...

Associated Law:

Zeno said...

>I am absolutely certain that the current president has not committed any crimes while in office, although if you can show me examples, as well as said documented laws that Obama has broken, I will be glad to retract my statement.

It is the nature of governments to commit crimes.

biomechanical923 said...

@Anonymous 9:22

I am not a Libertarian (although I do have some very Libertarian views when it comes to things like social freedoms), and I am definitely not defending James.

However, I believe there is a logical flaw in your argument that denying social services is a "death sentence".

Denying social services is no more of a "death sentence" to beneficiaries than getting an abortion is a "death sentence" to an unborn child. That is to say, that it isn't one.

Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" is not only an ethical argument for why Third-Trimester Abortion should still be legal, but I personally believe it's an ethical argument for why Libertarianism in any subject is not inherently unethical.

Heavily paraphrased, the basic idea is that if another human being has been attached to you as a form of life-support, you have no ethical obligation to remain attached to them.

Removing somebody else's hooks from your body is not an act of violence or hatred against them, but rather an assertion of your own freedom.

To me, I simply feel a great deal of dissonance in trying to believe that a woman has a right to detach herself from a fetus, (regardless of its biological dependence on her, as an expression of freedom), yet trying to believe that a person does not have a right to "detach" himself financially from dependent strangers as an expression of that same freedom.

Omegalittlebob said...

Bob, I love you, and I love what you do, and I'll NEVER EVER stop following what you, because you are a bad ass dude.

But the way you look at Republicans is disturbing to me. As though they are all of the terrible Bible thumping, numb sculled, equality hating morons. The way you see things is evidence of how I believe the two political parties have started acting towards each other.

It's no longer "My party is better then your party" its become "My party will bring about a glorious new future where all good things will come to pass, and FUCK the other party because they will send us into a downward spiral, to an Event Horizon style Hell, from which there is no return."

Above all, I'm concerned for you, and the whole Nation.
Love you Bob.

Andrew said...


That's their public message. Their unspoken message is "nothing will get done unless WE can take credit for it". American politics is a zero-sum game now: anything good for you is bad for the enemy, anything good for the enemy is bad for you. There's still some room for compromise among the Democrats, due to their far more varied constituency and more vacillating natures (they haven't yet gone full hard-ass, and are lagging behind the GOP in embracing "modern" tactics), but give it time. They may catch up with the GOP if the latter make it clear that balanced compromise (as opposed to capitulation) is off the table and that wrecking the country is A-OK, as long as they think you can convince 51% of the country that the other party's responsible for it.

Needless to say, winning elections is far more important to them than is governing the country. The means have become the ends. There's money in elections, and there's money in being in power. Actually accomplishing something while in power is incidental (Congressmen spend as much if not more time campaigning than they do in session, the filibuster is used on everything, and legislation is written by lobbyists). The permanent campaign will go the route of permanent revolution - stagnation, rot, then civil war.

For the record, I hope I'm wrong. I am prone to melancholy on the subject of politics.

Nixou said...

"As though they are all of the terrible Bible thumping, numb sculled, equality hating morons."

Of course all republicans are not terrible Bible thumping, numb sculled, equality hating morons. A great many are merely terrible Bible thumping, numb sculled, equality hating morons' lackeys.

Cyrus said...

@Jake: So Obama and this Bell guy said, "we should research every possible avenue" (while in the meantime not taking ANY action to actually limit vaccination), they get slammed by a special interest group for that and now they are anti-science?

That's pretty weak tea, considering the crux (and beauty) of science: You can hardly ever claim to have reached a definitive, end-all conclusion or "truth". Keep that in mind, in case any forrays into FTL travel are still made within our lifetime.

Jake said...

For the most part you're right, science does work that way, (although so far no evidence links vaccines and autism, the Andrew Wakefield paper that started the whole fiasco was discredited long ago).

However, the fact that he appointed someone like that and himself holds doubts like that, legitimizes the anti-vaccine movement in some people's eye's, giving a little bit more rationalization to not vaccinate their kids.

Also, Bob has gone on record as saying that people who say vaccines cause Autism should be arrested, so this should give him some pause, if he supports a man who appointed someone Bob thinks should be in prison.

Full disclosure: I myself have high-functioning Autism and am sick of people spreading negligence in my name.

Cyrus said...

@Jake: I agree, it may indeed send a very wrong message. It would be good to have a more detailed timeline on this, i.e. did Obama or Bell continue to voice vaccine-related concerns after the Wakefield study was conclusively found to be a fraud in 2010?

Matt said...

@ Andrew

Hey man, sorry for the slow response.

Work and life dragged me away and I had other things to deal with.

Now, I want to talk about some points you made.

1st, Don't think of me being a mean or angry guy, Im just stating my view points as best I can with what limited time I have to put my thoughts together.

Now then, I need to clarify my view on why Romney lost. I did not say, nor do I belive, that obama ran a bad campaign, or that Rommney was a BAD canidate.
What I pointed out was that rommney, did not do things I felt he needed to do to maintain and push the momentum forward to win the election. Particulary in the third debate regarding libya, but also on economics, I feel had he pushed harder, and more forcesfully on those targets, he'd have beaten obama, not big, but he would have won.

Now, your right, rommney was NOT the only reason he lost, there is Plenty of blame to go around in the Reps and they need to rethink how they will handle things and what battles they want to fight in the long run. On that, I agree 100 percent.

My statement about the Democratic base was, poorly worded, which I apologize for.

What I should have said is, the Massive, Popular support they had in 2008, has been erroding for the 4 years, bit by bit. Yes, Obama won big, yes, the dems still retain the senate. But 4 years ago, they were running the whole show. Now? they barely hold the senate and the house slips further into the Reps corner, and Obama has less popular support now then ever.

Now, on the subject of fox news. Reality check.

Fox news, doesnt beat 1 news network, or 2, or 3, but it beats them ALL!

The first time in almost a year that CNN beat fox news, was the election. It took a fucking election for them to beat fox, and even then, in prime time and among young 18 to 25, they still LOST, onyl winning the over all night ratings.

Thats not just Rightys, but independents, and dems who are not simply following the party line put out by CNN and MSNBC.

Your right about my statment, about my last sentence. Lack of context made it ineffective. I will try to fix that here.

When you look at every time there has been Major, major change in washington, it has always come on the heels of MAJOR, MAJOR failure.

Reagan following carter, Clinton following Bush, Obama following BUSH 2, and thats just what in my life time.

Every single time, those shifts occured due to Major events and over reach by the incumbent. Clinton with the gun ban and crime bill costing dems the house, the senate, and unseating the first speaker of the house in 130 years.

Then bush jr taking clintons place after the democrats had run there good will to ground by overreaching and getting a surplus, but having no major plan to maintain it or continue to grow it.

Bush came in with the promise of Big bussines growth and major jobs increases, and briefly, he had it going on, then it fell to pieces cause of bad policy and poor planning and to much de regulation, and we get the Dems sweeping into power in a mid term and then we get obama.

All history repeats, and if obama doesn't keep his promises of stronger economy, less debt, ETC, the democratic party will fall apart as people reailze that High ideals, doesn't create jobs, or put food on the table, especially if the country is Bankrupt.
Again, thats just how I view things. Im no pundit or Analyst, Im a tech, with 15 years of hard time tech work under his belt. I don't make this prediction based on emotion, but on my personal observations of history and politics.

Matt said...

Lastly, Your right, the Dems didn't run from obama this time as they did in 2010, and thats my other point. They aren't distancing themselves or keeping any seperation, they are fully complicit in the Presidents future, as were the media in his election campaign.

So now, they all either prevail, or burn, together. If obama can turn things around and get this country on it's feet, reduce the debt, and solve the entitlment issues, then the dems will be the power for the next 20 years id say.

if now, then by January 2017, the dems will be a shell of themselves, broken and cowed by the republicans after a Land fall 2016 victory.

It has hapened before, and if obama fails, it will happen again. Only this time, it will be 10 times worse.

Great expectations means that your Failures, are all the more damning to your reputation.

Obama has four more years, and no election to worry about. If he fails, there is NO more excuse. No more blaming bush, no hiding behind the media shield he had this time.

All eyes are on him and the dems.


Megabyte said...

I hate to say it, but I think Andrew is right if we don't collectively stop this "team sports on crack" mentality. Hell, Nixou's latest entry alone is a PRIME example of what Im talking about. Bob is a walking example, but I figure if you couldn't see that after his last video on this blog.... you probably never will see the kind of mindset that will destroy this nation.

Anonymous said...

@ biomechanical923

Regardless of the ethics of forcing people to "provide life support" for others or the inherent social Darwinist implication of "well, you should have been born in a rich family", dropping it doesn't make those depending on them simply go away. It turns them to crime to make up the difference and causes significant losses in both a reduced bottom-level workforce and the damages caused by theft, mugging, and murder. It's also the kind of government attitude that leads to revolts, power vacuums, and brutal regimes. A libertarian politician needs an answer to this inevitability.

James, answer my questions or we'll have to conclude you're a political moron that just wants a cause for his childish anger against some vague definition of The Man™ to liven up the ennui of his middle class suburbanite life.

Nixou said...

One thing too often ignored about "Social Darwinism" is that it is in fact older than Darwinism itself: the 'Screwing poor people is my birthright" idéology existed before Darwing published his Origins of Species: its proponants took the name "Social Darwinists" later because it sounded all sciencey and they thought it would help them look smarter than they really were.

Andrew said...


Thanks for your reply. There's no need to apologize for a short delay. Why should a blog's comment section be held above real life considerations?

"What I should have said is, the Massive, Popular support they had in 2008, has been erroding for the 4 years, bit by bit."

Well yes, because a party is supposed to win big when the incumbent party screws up. Obama wasn't running against an unpopular incumbent this time, he WAS the unpopular incumbent. The natural trend is for parties to lose popularity over time, hence why we keep going back and forth with neither party having the White House for more than 12 years. There are many exceptions, of course, but as neither party tends to govern well, they don't tend to stay in office for too long.

"Fox news, doesnt beat 1 news network, or 2, or 3, but it beats them ALL!

The first time in almost a year that CNN beat fox news, was the election. It took a fucking election for them to beat fox, and even then, in prime time and among young 18 to 25, they still LOST, onyl winning the over all night ratings.

Thats not just Rightys, but independents, and dems who are not simply following the party line put out by CNN and MSNBC."

Are you saying that FNC's ratings are regularly better than ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, and Univision/Telemundo's combined? FNC does a very comprehensive job of appealing to conservatives, I'll grant you, but I wouldn't real too much into that. That wouldn't come close to proving a point that FNC represents the typical American voter or anything, only that it may represent the typical American television news viewer. I would need to see some evidence that independents and moderates also disproportionately watch FNC. Right now, all I can see is that TV news viewer who want a conservative spin would go to FNC, and those wanting a liberal or moderate spin would go to one or more of the others. Like it or not, FNC is so deeply wedded to the GOP than it can't reasonably claim to be moderate, independent, or balanced.

Its election night coverage is good, I'll grant you. I always flip between FNC and either MSNBC or CNN (which, for the record, always has the most insufferable coverage). For about 3.5 hours, I thought FNC did a good job at reporting the events without spinning them (O'Reilly notwithstanding), but once the election was called and Rove had his little moment, they immediately went back to their typical line of saying nothing but bad things about Obama and nothing but good things about Romney (I would have liked had O'Reilly stuck around).

Andrew said...


"Obama has four more years, and no election to worry about. If he fails, there is NO more excuse. No more blaming bush, no hiding behind the media shield he had this time.

All eyes are on him and the dems"

That's because the House Republicans refuse to compromise with the party in power. How would you feel if Congressional Democrats filibustered and obstructed everything Dubya tried to do, and refused to give him once inch on Afghanistan, Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, or EVERYTHING ELSE he tried to do.

Yeah, it does appear to be up the Democrats to sort out the economy. They're the only party actually trying to do something. But it's not ALL up to the Democrats. The Republicans still have to play ball and respect the wishes of the American voters who now TWICE chose Obama over the Republicans. Twice now, the GOP has taken their case to the American people, and twice they were rejected and told that the people prefer that the Democrats set the agenda. Now, is the GOP going to finally respect that, or are they going to sit back and dare the Democrats to try to do something, then once again blame them for not doing anything? It's well in the power of the House Republicans (and those in the Senate as well) to paralyze the country for the next two years, and it would be 100% consistent for them to blame that all on Obama, since that's EXACTLY what they did this time.

So let me ask you: What do YOU want the Republican party to do over the next two years? We don't sink or swim with the Dems only, we sink or swim together.

biomechanical923 said...

@Anonymous 11:49 and @Nixou

Again, ethically speaking, I don't think there's anything inherently Darwininistic about preserving your own health and well-being.

You're not "screwing over" poor people by refusing to help them. By the same token, you're not "screwing over" sick people by refusing to donate a kidney, or an eyeball, or some blood.

I'm not arguing "NOBODY SHOULD PAY TAXES UNLESS THEY AGREE WHAT IT'S FOR" (Like I said, I'm not a Libertarian), I am saying there's a big difference between going out of your way to harm somebody, and somebody having harm come to them because you don't want to sacrifice yourself for them.

Selfish? Sure. Unethical? No.

Anonymous said...

@ Above

The ethics of how much social support the government should offer, how much taxation should go towards social support, and the obligation of the advantaged towards the disadvantaged don't have much bearing on the (im)practicality of libertarian doctrine.

Most of the doctrine centers around three unspoken assumptions:

1) Adherents are already financially secure for the foreseeable future or have convinced themselves their current status is temporary and they want the same benefits in place for when their yacht comes in.
2) Adherents hate the idea of other people getting any kind of "free ride" off their success.
3) As such, the government's role is in protecting those assets (police, legal, and military systems) and as little else as possible.

By itself, this doctrine can only really work in very hypothetical situations that do not reflect the realities of human behavior or basic economics, so a libertarian needs to fill in the holes and bridge the gap from our current system to their ideal new one.

One of those questions is crime: do you offset the crime with more police spending (which would, ironically enough, probably cost about 30 times more than just keeping our current welfare system and make the masses utterly loathe their government) or is the dramatic increase in crime and the damage it causes worth it in exchange for billionaires having higher numbers to throw around at their yacht parties? If you break it down to numbers, it pits the extremely minor inconvenience and moral outrage of a few thousand against the very real suffering of millions. The usual counter to this is "they'd rather invest that money into new business ventures", but so very few do that. Money tends to find its way to the top and just sit there.

This is the kind of question I never see libertarians answer with anything resembling coherence and that's because it's largely a fantasy scenario constructed to allow scum like the Koch Brothers to feel like victims for having to pay taxes.

Zeno said...


>One of those questions is crime:

I reject the premise. We must abolish the institution of crime-punishment.

"O poor mortals, how ye make this earth bitter for each other."

I don't see how anyone can still call themselves a libertarian after the Portland Massacre.

Matt said...

@ andrew

Well andrew, I'll try to answer both your points as best I can.

Fox is, as you say, right leaning, but in terms of overall performance, I'd still say that it's right leaning bias isn't as bad as the left leaning bias of other networks, though admittedly, some more then others. Fox doesn't have a massive Lib or indy base, but it gets millions of views every ngiht, and has audiance fiqures that show that it does get a large variety of viewers. On the other hand, Msnbc, CNN, and the big three, no almost always are Straight pure Liberal.

So yes, Fox is right leaning, no doubt, but it has to be, as it's the ONLY balance left really. Thats not a good, it's just truth.

OH, and oriely had a much better statement on the following show after the election, but your right, he had a meltdown during didnt he.

now, on to your other question. your right, on that, you and I agree.

Both parties are at fault, like it or not, and both need to get with reality. but, the party in power ALWAYS, take the brunt of the blame, historicly speaking. If the dems and obama fail in the next four years, regardless of if the REPS do anything or not, they will still take the blame, and the reps will likely sweep congress and the White house.

now, as for what I want done?

Both SIDES, and I mean this as honestly as I can, need to SOBER UP.

Im not going party by party here, this is just what SHOULD be done, in my view, im sure your able to fiqure out which refers to which party though.

Tax reform and revenue creation. Like it or not, taxs need to be fixed, as they have since the creation of the IRS. thats just reality, and if we see a bit of a tax increase, so be it. Im not for new taxes, I think they are economic poison, but tax reform, and even a possible flat tax? yeah, that could work. Maybe.

Entitments, HAVE TO GO DOWN! Not be removed, not done away, but we need t move from a "GiVE ME" mentally to a "help me get back on my FEET" mentality. Cut back entitlements, focus on getting jobs created and placing people IN them, and this country will kick off again in no time.

Defense spending. We need to change our usage of military power. We should not be the worlds policeman, we should instead focus military power on Protecting our borders, and our citizens over seas, nothing more.

Regulation. We need to understand, that both over regulation, and to much Deregulation, are BAD THINGS. One causes the economy to break itself, the other Chokes the economy to death. You have to be smart about how you handle it. In this regard, while I didn't like him much, I think clinton understood that.

Lastly, we need to Seperate the social Ideals of the left from the Economic realities of the right, and address them one at a time. its all well and good to have this vison of a some kind of perfect equality, but as other nations have shown, that Ideal , if not properly managed, CRUSHS economies. Greece says HI btw.

Fix the Economy FIRST, Get unemployment UNDER 6 percent, get the debt down by at LEAST 30 percent, THEN, we can talk about the Social problems. THough if you FIX the economy, the social issues will be easier to handle as you have the resources and support to make it work.

so, thats what I want done Andrew. Both sides have to get together to make it work, and put the Petty, Single issue shit aside to address the big issues first.

Lemme know what you think.

Andrew said...


"Both parties are at fault, like it or not, and both need to get with reality. but, the party in power ALWAYS, take the brunt of the blame, historicly speaking. If the dems and obama fail in the next four years, regardless of if the REPS do anything or not, they will still take the blame, and the reps will likely sweep congress and the White house."

If the GOP can guarantee that the Dems take the blame for anything bad that happens, that's one hell of an incentive for a hyperpartisan Republican to obstruct any legislation aimed at economic recovery and then reap the rewards later. We've already seen that even historically low approval ratings won't get the GOP kicked out of the House, so Boehner and company have no reason to allow any deal to happen that would save the economy from going off the fiscal cliff. From your perspective as a Republican (voter), is there anything that makes you think they won't do just that?

"Entitments, HAVE TO GO DOWN!"

Agreed. In particular, I support raising the Social Security and Medicare recipient age by at least five years. Unfortunately, as millions of seniors have planned their retirements with the current system in mind, it would either take many years before we could see any returns from such a move (by grandfathering them in and slowly pushing the age up by maybe one year of age for every two or three years that pass), or else we'd be cutting a lot of them off, at a time when medical costs continue to skyrocket across the board. This should have been dealt with ten years ago, back when the GOP had the White House and Congress for four straight years. It would have been a lot less painful than it would be now with a divided Congress and partisan gamesmanship worse than ever.

Social Security and Medicare costs are far greater than unemployment insurance, BTW, and growing more expensive at a far greater rate. And if you cut unemployment payments BEFORE the economy recovers, you're gonna be making life a lot more unpleasant for anyone not living in a gated community. Unemployment funding is something that should be saved for after the two biggies are dealt with.

Defense spending is another one that should be among the first cut. It's one of the biggest, and there's no good reason why it should be so high. Romney's pledge to jack that up far higher was one of the most irresponsible things I recall him uttering. What do you expect Congressional Republicans will do if Obama calls for deep cuts?

"Lastly, we need to Seperate the social Ideals of the left from the Economic realities of the right, and address them one at a time"

Sounds like you want to vote Libertarian. Is there anything in their platform you strongly disagree with?

Matt said...

Well andrew, to be honest, I don't expect the Reps to do anyhting but be hard line hitters and I don't like it myself, but I know it's what they will do. THe reps are angry, bitter, and resent the situatoin, and will fight tooth and nail to get there way or stymie the dems. It's up to Obama to find a way to unify them.

You and I agree on Social and medicare, and on Unemployment, its one of those things that sometimes breaks me from republican norms in that I support it's use, though I have concerns about it's current implementation.

If obama calls for deep cuts, i think he's overreaching, but I think he can make some cuts, and be careful about what he targets for cuts, I think he can do a good job of reducing Defense, without hurting our militaries abilities.

As far as voting Libertarian, to be honest, the most I understand about there supposed ideals is what I learn from bioshock, and lets be honoest, NOT the best way to judge political philosphy.

I probably sound like them cause Im a practical man, not a greedy or ambitious man. I think thats why I have such strange views or a republican/ conservitive. Economicaly, Im pretty in line with them, though I have some areas I diverge from them on. Socially, the best I can muster in terms of the so called Right wing Outrage is , as Yahtzee put it, "Couldn't be ARsed to CARE".

Seriously, Lets deal with the Economic problem first, then, then, we get into the social battles.

Jake said...

Some libertarians support a safety net:

Uncle Tim said...

However angry some people might be about the results of this election, they can't beat this:

For everyone else, this is pure entertainment.

Nixou said...

"If the GOP can guarantee that the Dems take the blame for anything bad that happens, that's one hell of an incentive for a hyperpartisan Republican to obstruct any legislation aimed at economic recovery and then reap the rewards later"

I'd go as far as saying that this is the assumption which explains the behavior of the GOP during the last four years.
They assumed that people would be either
A) Too stupid to notice the obvious sabotage of the economy
B) Submissive enough too capitale and resign themselves to republican rule.


"We've already seen that even historically low approval ratings won't get the GOP kicked out of the House"

That's because they cheated
Seriously: 70 to 75% of the elected representative in states which voted more for Democrats than for Republicans?
Not a week ago, some right-wingers were saying "You'll see what you'll see: If Obama wins the Electoral College after losing the vote, there will be a revolution!". In fact, during the election night, Trump started to fill tweeter with calls for a violent uprising (at least until one of his lawyer told him that this kind of the stuff is precisely what earned Anwar Awlaki a visit from killer drones.)
Go we ear the same sort of fiery outrage at the GOP losing the popular vote and keeping the House? Helloooooooooooooooooooo?


"Defense spending is another one that should be among the first cut. It's one of the biggest, and there's no good reason why it should be so high"

There are plenty of military bases and military-industrial complex's factories in republican leaning districts. Corporate welfare for these companies translates into (socially-useless) jobs which in turns translates into republican votes.
And this is not new: when Clinton decided that, since the cold war was over, some military bases would have to go, he provoked an early freak-out from politicians elected in army-dependant districts.


"Lastly, we need to Seperate the social Ideals of the left from the Economic realities of the right, and address them one at a time"

If there is one thing that the last four years demonstrated, it's that reality and math have a liberal bias. The only reason the US economy did not collapse was because Obama refused to allow the GOP to force austerity.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Jake said...

At that last part, I refer to Cyrus' first comment above in response to me.

Andrew said...


"Well andrew, to be honest, I don't expect the Reps to do anyhting but be hard line hitters and I don't like it myself, but I know it's what they will do. THe reps are angry, bitter, and resent the situatoin, and will fight tooth and nail to get there way or stymie the dems. It's up to Obama to find a way to unify them."

If this is how you feel, how could you possibly support the Republican party? Did you only vote for Romney because you thought the only way you'd see compromise is if the GOP controlled everything, and the Dems would be bullied into not obstructing them? Did you vote for a Republican Congressman?

If Obama doesn't manage to convince House Republicans to support his reforms, do you think he SHOULD be blamed for that? It takes two to agree. If the minority party refuses to accept anything short of everything they want, that doesn't make the majority party responsible for the lack of compromise. The GOP doesn't get to be the majority party if they lose the elections, but their behavior suggests they see only two scenarios: total Republican control, or no governance whatsoever. That is not the mark of a party that has any business existing in a democracy. That is the mark of a one-party system.

Given how reasonably you've argued here, I don't see how you could possibly support such people.

"As far as voting Libertarian, to be honest, the most I understand about there supposed ideals is what I learn from bioshock, and lets be honoest, NOT the best way to judge political philosphy."

You can be a Libertarian and not be a Randian. Even if the Libertarian party somehow took the White House, they wouldn't turn the country into an anarcho-capitalist collective, they'd have to compromise same as any other party. But they would have the mandate to set the agenda, and the other parties would have to be content to moderate the ruling party's agenda. Government spending and taxation would both be pared down considerable, but you wouldn't see society collapse while the 1% go off to live on some floating island in the sky.

You DO sound to me like a Libertarian. I convinced my best friend to switch his vote from Romney to Gary Johnson. I don't support a Libertarian country, but I wouldn't mind seeing a Libertarian in the White House. I'd vote that way if I felt they had a reasonable shot at shaking up the two-party system.

Zeno said...


>I'd go as far as saying that this is the assumption which explains the behavior of the GOP during the last four years.
>They assumed that people would be either
>A) Too stupid to notice the obvious sabotage of the economy

It's politically impossible to do anything other than sabotage the economy.

>If there is one thing that the last four years demonstrated, it's that reality and math have a liberal bias. The only reason the US economy did not collapse was because Obama refused to allow the GOP to force austerity.

What austerity was the GOP peddling?

Jake said...

While there's nothing I can find for what either of them say on the matter for either, I want to clarify about our discussion about science, according to Allison Singer, former executive vice president of communications and awareness for Autism Speaks who left because of the opinion of the higher ups in the group about vaccine research, In general, I disagree with a policy that says, 'Despite what this study shows, more studies should be done." At some point, you have to say, 'This question has been asked and answered and it's time to move on.' We need to be able to say, 'Yes, we are now satisfied that the earth is round.'"

I'll still refer Nixou to your post because it still holds, by and large, to the social sciences.

Jake said...

What's the Portland Massacre?

Andrew said...


"That's because they cheated
Seriously: 70 to 75% of the elected representative in states which voted more for Democrats than for Republicans?"

God bless Gerrymandering. It's not corruption; it's free speech. Just like everything else we're doing to ruin the system.

Do these look like reasonable Congressional districts to you?

For those overseas or otherwise not in-the-know: THIS is why Congress is messed up. Congressmen are allowed to advocate re-drawing their district's borders so that demographically-favorable neighborhoods remain with them, and unfavorable ones are removed. This allows Congressmen to keep their seats and for each party to guarantee a certain number of seats in each state, no matter what they do while in office.

And they keep doing it. It's getting worse.

Nick said...

did u see Rush Limabugh's crying on his stupid radio show?

Zeno said...


Jake said...

I did and can't find it, douche.

Zeno said...


That's odd, I used an intermediary that's supposed to make sure my search history isn't taken into account and this was the first result I got:

Nixou said...

"What austerity was the GOP peddling?"

T'was the "Cut the taxes then balance the budget by slashing everything that does not benefit exclusively to our voters" part of their platform, otherwise known as the Ryan Plan.

Jake said...

I apologize for calling you a douche, I thought you were mocking me for being lazy.

Other than that, is the article the event you were referring to, or was it a real massacre?

Matt said...

@ Andrew

Well, like I said, I voted for rommney, I never said, I voted Straight party line. though truthfully my votes fall that way, but not cause I follow republicans blindly, but because often, they have the platforms and policies I support personaly. At the end of the day, I vote 4 subjects 90 perfect of the time.

1st amendment.

2nd Amenmdment.


Internet and Technological Freedom.

Those are my big subjects.

And while some times the reps really piss me off on the 4th item, on all other three, i tend to agree with them, even when I have concerns about the gridlock in congress.

I wont put the dems in full charge when I belive there polices would bring ruin to those things i hold most dear polticialy.

On your second statment, let me remind you, i never said that I feel obama SHOULD be blamed if the Reps stonewall him. I simply pointed out, tha as president, it's his JOB to get things working.

If he Fails, the blame will fall on him, regardless. Even if he really doesn't deserve it, you know thats true.

I don't like his policies, and I don't trust his leadership, but I don't blame him exclusively for the issues the country faces.

But he will be the one held accuontable, along with the dems, when 2016 rolls around

I think both sides need to drop the posturing, drop the idealogy, and deal with Reality.

I also think, neither side, will till they both get a sizable Beating or two in elections. Which is why 2016 will be the sea change so to speak. When the Dems gets pasted after having had such support or so long, as I think they will, alot of people on the left will be thinking it's time to change stance. Just as I think, right now, the right is considering the same, but not willing to admit it yet to avoid angering the base. They will wait, till that time rolls around, then start an campaign to change there image.

Course, if by that time CNN, MSNBC, and other magjor Networks have gone the Way of current tv, or have changed the bias enough to save themselves and take a bite outta foxs market, that might help as well. Just a thought.

Now, As for Libertarian, maybe, who knows, I don't, i vote Issues and policy, not idealogy, least in most cases.

Still, iv'e rather enjoyed our chats, it's nice to speak to someone on the subject without it getting uglier and uglier as time goes on you know.

But I'll tell you this, the election I would love to see, the one thing I want to happen, is I want to See Bloomberg taken out of office.

Seriously, I think he's INSANE for number of reasons, but in particular, his 2nd amendment stance infuriates me.

But I best stop there,cause thats a subject I do get heated about, along with first amendments issues.

So, Lemme know what you think, catch you later.

Zeno said...

>T'was the "Cut the taxes then balance the budget by slashing everything that does not benefit exclusively to our voters" part of their platform, otherwise known as the Ryan Plan.

Except the Ryan Plan doesn't even do that. Under that regime, in no year is spending less than the year before, and the budget doesn't get balanced until 2039! And that's only because he assumes that GDP growth averages 4%, inflation stays under 2%, that the yield on the the 10-year Treasury stays below 4%, and that unemployment gets to 2.8% by the end of the decade.

It's fucking fantasyland. Did you know that using the same metrics that we used back in 1980 inflation is currently at 10% and unemployment is over 22.5%? Do you think it's any coincidence that every time they revise the statistics they make the economy look better than it did previously?

In the late 90s the Fed switched from using an arithmetic mean to a geometric mean to calculate the CPI. How stupid do they think we are? In chapter two, CHAPTER TWO, of Calculus by Spivak the reader is asked to prove that a geometric mean is always less than or equal to an arithmetic mean!

Zeno said...

>Other than that, is the article the event you were referring to,
Si senor.

Anonymous said...

No one won this election. Just like no one could have won the last. This country is broken and divided. The electoral system once again proved to be a total joke.

This government is a joke, a bunch of rich liars fighting each other for votes. Obama spins his little lies and every Dem clamors about how progressive and amazing he is.

Romney sits spouting the same bullshit as his opponent and the Republicans do the exact same thing.

You know what I've heard 30+ times since the election? "I'm glad we elected Obama, I'd rather have a *Good* man than a *business* man."

No one talking about how you chose burning over drowning. This country is doomed. Not because of the silver tongued politicians who buy their seats with fancy ads and expensive wordsmiths.

But because we're all fucking idiots. Every last one of us. Too shortsighted to see the real problems that plague us. A possible conflict in the middle east, the dwindling resources, the sad state of world-wide cooperation, and ever present environmental problems.

Of course we're all crying about legalizing weed. Bitching about how I don't get treated the same as a white guy when I go to McDonald's or apply for welfare. Crying that our government needs more minorities and gays in seats of power.

Instead of looking ahead more and more of the country look to now. Who cares about creating more jobs in clean energy? Who gives a rats ass about trying to get the next generation interested in math and science.

At least I can go light up. Maybe they'll let me use my EBT card to buy a pack of marijuana cigarettes.

AmericanAviator said...

Here in MN, we ALMOST got rid of that horrible witch Bachmann. It got so close. That, and we DID get rid of that idiot Cravaack.

David said...


Bob, go fuck yourself.

There's a conversation to be had on abortion. But NO conversation will be had when you reprehensibly strawman the other side's platform.

"but if this really does get to the U.S. Congress expect a massive fight from Republicans - the zealously anti-Hispanic Tea Party wing of the GOP will not support a predominantly-Latino Spanish-speaking territory becoming an American State. In a very real way, this could be the biggest thing that happened tonight"

Christ in hell! Bob, go fuck yourself.

I'm not sure if this qualifies me for the 'bullying' you talked about earlier, but if it is, then so be it, because it's something that needs to be said. GO FUCK YOURSELF

Rick Santorum--who was a major Tea Party candidate--said that PR becoming the 51st state would be just fine as long as they all learn English (as in, English becomes standard school curriculum). Because everyone being able to understand each other is key in unity.

I mean for FUCK'S sake, Mr. Chipman, you're a proponent of minimizing state power and emphasizing federal power, why wouldn't you be in favor of Puerto Rico learning English? What do you think they're not smart enough to learn another language? What are you anti-hispanic or something Mister Race-card-playing Assface?

I love you video games/movie/culture commentary so, SO much, so I don't see why you have to be so... mislead on politics.

I mean it's not that you have no idea what the issues are; sometimes you are right on the mark.

It just seems like your sole problem is that you have no clue what conservatives (or anyone you disagree with) actually thinks or says. You believe all the tired, bullshit lies said about them.

You can either actually listen to the opposition, or not talk about them. One or the other.

If you'd like to actually know what people on the right are saying, you can tune into Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, or the less famous and more 'intellectual, philosophical' shows like Mark Levin.

Or much more easily, you could watch Youtube channels like How the World Works

Or Bill Whittle

I shouldn't even read the rest of your thoughtless post here. But I guess I'm just about to.

David said...

"This country is broken and divided. The electoral system once again proved to be a total joke."

Actually, the electoral system has done exactly what it was designed to do: Reflect the will of the people

In the late 1800's and early 1900's, the American people overwhelmingly thought "fuck rich people", and as a result, we got a government that fucked the rich. We got presidents like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson that saw the Constitution as a mere guideline and not as law.

In the 1930's, the American people thought "I want free shit", and so Democrats were put into power to implement The New Deal and other new programs, to give people shit.

In the 1990's, the American people thought "I really don't care what my leader does with his penis", and so Bill Clinton became president; reflecting that sentiment.
HOWEVER, at the same time, the American people also thought "this free shit looks more like high taxes; I want less government cheese in my toenails", thus, a fiscally conservative Republican Congress was put into power, which reformed Welfare, cut taxes and healed away the deficit.

See what happened there? The American people wanted X, Y and Z, and so we had a Democrat president but a Republican Congress to reflect those wishes.

The Founding fathers were smart as hell, and the electoral system they made works fantastically to this day.

But of course, like you said, right now the country is divided. Half the people want more free shit, and the other half want cuts to the government. Half the people want green energy, the other half want the most productive energy. Half the people want more regulations on the free market, the other half want less.

Because of this down-the-middle split in public opinion, we have been given a gridlocked Congress and a stuck Federal government. The fact that Washington won't be able to get much done is not the fault of Washington; it's not the fault of the electoral system; it's the fault of the American people. It's we who can't compromise and get along; it is we who are stalemating America.

And to be honest, I'll take this gridlock any day over driving right down into the fiscal cliff. The debt implosion that brain-dead emotion-tards like Bob Chipman don't care about. I HOPE we don't compromise with the Democrats; any thing they want to do will just add to the problem. Dr. Seuss can shove his trivialization of the reality between good and bad decisions up his ass.

Anonymous said...

Too bad if President Obama DID get kidnapped by ninjas, there's no dudes left in this country bad enough to rescue him. Everyone would just get on tumblr and blame white privilege and Christianity.

Oh well. Lets go for a burger! HA HA HA