Yeah. I really didn't expect the verdict to be as damning as it was. Everyone knew the police were guilty but I just thought the enquiry would simply target a few scapegoats and be done with it. And I'm glad it was ordinary football fans who fought for it, peacefully, intelligently and with far more dignity than the authorities ever credited them with. Absolutely amazing outcome.

I cant believe this hasnt been the consensus the whole time, the claims of the victums were hardly extraordinary - My loved ones were not drunk or violent - and they were supported by many people with serious legal backgrounds.

Every time this cuntsponge has been on Question Time ive wanted to revoke the license fee. Hopefully this is the end of his disgraceful career

Why? Working within the community at after-school programs, with gang-intervention programs, the library, half-way houses, shelters, prisons, community awareness programs, civic meetings, NGOs, churches, universities, environmental and conservation groups, etc etc not enough for y'all? How is it more appropriate to work with political campaigns and vote than to actually work with the community? Voting is a sham, plain and simple and that is my premise. If folks ACTUALLY want to do something in their communities, there are plenty of ways do such, and working with political parties and political campaigns seems to me to have the least efficacy.

Im not saying you are cynical in your local community, you are too cynical about the work people do in other countries, as i made clear in my last post. Ive never tried to inject myself into the things youve posted about the police messing you about, i respect the fact you probably know more about your situation than me

But when it comes to international politics, you dont have much of value to add

Of course it's plenty but which one have you actually done? Are you saying you've worked in all of them? Or are these just "good ideas"?



it's not an either/or thing, they operate at different levels



so they don't vote in NGOs, civic metings, churches, conservation groups, etc? how do these groups make decisions?



even if you are only concerned with local politics, the political parties can create either a friendly or hostile environment for all of the local institutions you mentioned above. they can provide funding or withdraw it.

do you think the environment in halfway houses or prison programs change when you have shit like supermax prisons? do you think addicts should be lumped with violent criminals or sent to drug courts? and how does that affect the impacted communities?

Do you think the work of environmental groups is affected when pollution is encouraged by "pro-business" administrations?

Don't you realize that many of these people and groups are actually the "base" of these bigger parties?

Seriously man, there is a bigger picture at the national and international level and that can't fit our dreams 100%, but sometimes you have to take 60/40 over 40/60, yeah?

However, that happens at the local community level: the union organizers who decide to take a stance on foreign policy and splinter their membership. the health clinic that gets money for showing videos from CNN and pharmaceutical ads in the waiting room. the university that experiments with animals (ask PETA what they think about it). the NGO that misappropriates funds. the environmental group that misrepresents or outright falsifies data.

there is no purity at any level when you actually try to get things done in this planet. none. ideals belong in the fucking heavens of thought and imagination, and they remain a point in the compass, not an achievable destination. compromise is the rule of planet earth once you get more that 1 person involved. if you want to get things done you can't be all pure and holy-- besides, there will always be haters who disapprove no matter how hard you try-- just make sure you're one of the doers not one of the haters.

LAWS AND SAUSAGES

and what exactly has the Democratic Party added of value to the international community? I would say not much more or less than President Bush, and no more or less than Mitt Romney would do. Our President is the most charismatic internationally, but his actual policies and actions have been as criminal and reprehensible internationally as any other president in any history. Stop and reflect on that for a second and realize the depth of what I am trying to say, but understand that internationally is where I am MOST critical of the American political system ;)

Yes it is, one level is in reality, and the other operates at the realm of our collective political imagination. Voting is the symptom of the disconnect between the two.


They do indeed, perhaps you missed my point. Its not exactly democratic principles that I am challenging, its the current national level political machinery operating in the United States. I am essentially promoting the "boycott" vote, and not giving into the fear-mongering of either party of "support me or its you're fault."


You are right, but simply voting for or participating with the campaign of one political party or another is not going to dictate that. Rather, if you work on the street, grass-roots level in our communities you will indeed be interacting daily with the government. The difference is you won't necessarily be in bed with the parties, and further, you will be operating more at an equal playing field as equals rather than mutual sycophants.


Its not about our fucking dreams, its about the nightmare which is many people's reality. If our political machinery is the base and support of police brutality, in systemic economic equality, of structural racism, of the death, murder and insane mayhem of war in several countries simultaneously while funding several others.. Is that really what you want to vote for and support? It is much more effective to work directly with the communities and organizations which operate on the ground.

I am sorry it I am a bit more disillusioned than y'all, but inevitably we all see the Light like Paul did and get knocked of the fanciful high-hopes high horse of patriotic wishful thinking. EVERY country, EVERY nation, EVERY community has to inevitably deal with the negatives they reap along side the positives. I am not pretending these are not our mutual realities, I would argue all the more that our current political machinery IS that problem particularly because it scape-goats the blame which is its own. If you want to support Mr. Obama that is fine, but please ask him why he keeps killing people in Yemen and Pakistan and Somalia and Mexico and Los Angeles? Is that what we voted for? You can ask Mitt the same thing ;)

The image of football fans in the 80s was terrible (Hillsborough wasn't that long after Heysel) so I'm sure large sections of the general public would've instinctively taken the side of the police against people they regularly saw described in the media (by the likes of McKenzie) as 'animals', etc. I can only compare it to the likely public response now to something like that happening at a nightclub full of chavs. The police would say they were on drugs and violent and I suspect the public would believe every word, regardless of the evidence. And while I don't think it's as significant a factor, I do know that some people couldn't stop themselves from reading events through the distorting lens of football and local rivalries.

For what it's worth I agree with practically everything Suchfriends... has said.

I had written a lengthy paragraph saying why but it added nothing to what he's said so far and it was badly written anyway.

I am as horrified by Obama's foreign policy as much as anyone, and I can't figure out why he's such a dick. I shift between:

1- He was always a hawkish dick, and we if had paid more attention in 2008 we would've realized it

2- The office corrupts. Lord knows what a head-fuck it must be to be POTUS.

3- There are things we don't know--either because they are top secret or under-reported or I have no idea where to research. If I had all the facts--who knows?--I might agree Obama has made the safest, smartest, most humane decisions when it comes to extraordinary rendition, drone attacks, etc.

Read this (or Paul Street's articles on ZNet):

 

"That book (Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics – June 2008) predicted that an Obama presidency would disappoint those who naively bought into the notion that his election heralded progressive change. I had no progressive expectations and thus was not disappointed. My prediction was based on my understanding of Obama’s centrist, neoliberal, business- and empire-friendly record in the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate and on the actual content of his presidential campaign."

^

Started skimming. Got depressed.

But then I realized: the progressive Obama we saw in 2008 candidacy WON, which means there's a thirst for this sort of leader.

So I'm a little optimistic for the future. 2016 should be a blast.

You saw a progressive Obama because you wanted to see a progressive Obama. His biggest skill is that he appeared all things to all people.

Right. I got scammed, or maybe scammed myself.

But what I'm saying is: in, say, 2007 I would've thought a progressive candidate would have no chance of winning.

Now I think a real progressive (not Obama) could come along and gain a lot more support than I would've thought possible five years ago.

Even if Obama isn't a progressive, he's made life easier for a future progressive candidate. I think.

Obama is hardly the dick you're making him out to be. Honestly I do think he would like things to be better and he does try. But he's caught between a rock and a hard place. He's running a country that is generally more conservative than most 1st world countries, he's got an opposing party that bark down everything he tries to do. He can't win no matter what he does. Either not liberal enough for the lefites, not right wing enough for the righties. You're forgetting what he's done for the better.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

And his foreign polices are in no way as bad as the Republicans has been or will be.

Folks getting killed by various US military agencies across the planet just might disagree highly with you ;)

In regards to Republican vs Democrat, when you do the analysis, it turns out the foreign policy of both parties over the past 15 years has been IDENTICAL including an emphasis on exploitative free-trade agreements, badgering through foreign aid contracts, and when all that fails outright displays of hard power by killing and maiming all kinds of people from all kinds of places :(

There was never any major wars under Bill Clinton was there? There were the stupid aerial bombings (Sudan, and Kosovo with NATO) but definitely no major land wars on the scale of both Bushs.

ITT: white people

No, Clinton's wars were all in secret, but what exactly do you think provoked the Bush era in the first place? Did y'all forget about places like Haiti, Columbia, or Somalia? The No-Fly-Zone over Iraq was enforced until 2000 including hundreds of sorties being dropped during that time. Lets not forget about Liberia, the Congo, Central African Republic, Cambodia, Kenya and Tanzania, Macedonia (twice), Bosnia (three times), Serbia (twice), All places where thousands of US boots were on the ground under the Clinton administration.. Further, Clinton was the master of the international free-trade agreements which birthed the Walmart effect. Clinton is not a Saint, rather, like Mr. Obama he is just a bit more persuasive than the Republicans, but they are all in the same bed together.

look here you fucking absolutist dolts, and tell me if it doesn't make a difference to have a rational person or a religious nutcase in charge, even if the rational person isn't your emperor-messiah:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...nd-george-bush

yes, obama keeps killing people with drones, ran into a legal mess trying to close guantanamo, hasn't finished the war in afghanistan, authorized domestic espionage, but he also pulled out of iraq, and more importantly he's not trying to fulfill idiotic prophecies by religiously-addled lunatics from 2000 years ago.

for all the shit that people talk about obama not being "progressive' enough there are millions of wingnuts equally crying that he's not doing enough to support israel, that he needs to start a war with iran, that he should have escalated with russia over georgia, that he's an agent of Kenyan anticolonialism, etc.

you can't fucking please everybody, and i'm not saying that i'm 100% pleased with obama, but shit, the "what's the alternative" question isn't just rethorical, it's a real life-and-death question when it comes to a lot of issue-- even if it's not EVERY FUCKING ISSUE.

if you want someone like president willard to take over, then don't vote for his oponent if that makes you feel clever or morally superior, but don't come crying about it when he takes over and begins another shitstorm-- we haven't even finished cleaning up the crap from the last one, either in foreign policy or in the economy, and the last thing we need is more tax cuts for millionaires and more military spending, but you say it's all a mirage and it makes no difference. very well you deluded fucks.

just take a look at this motherfucker:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/opinio...ack/index.html
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mid...#axzz26ThHxHU2

you fucking imbeciles

obama is far from perfect but at least he believes in science-- you don't

You realize that Barack pulled out of Iraq following to a T every detail of the Bush negotiated?


Oh you mean like how Democratic hawks like John Kerry are always suggesting?


I ain't crying, just keeping it real yo.


Way to fear-monger !@#$%!, are you seriously reading what you type here or has a DNC spambot hijacked your account? Broham, we all know Mitt ain't gonna win, and that the Republicans are just playing bad cop to Mr. Obama's good cop. Then with all of us duped, the president can continue to carry out the Clinton plans of secret wars all over the world.

The Republicans are just a bit more bellicose in their wargames, but understand that both parties are complicit in this evil. If you again feel comfortable supporting all that baggage, I am a bit surprised to see it. Wishful thinking on your part, but wishful thinking it remains.

oh jeezus fuck. "just a little more bellicose" means a million iraqi dead and an economy in shambles, but that's nothing to your supreme wisdom i guess.

What, you think the Democrats wouldn't have done the same? Lets not kid ourselves here and expose each others mutual naivete ;)

yep, it makes no difference to your know-it-allness.



that's what fucking big-tent parties do-- they contain diverse constituences that fight it out for control of the party. within the democrats you have the progressives and the blue dogs, you have the unions and the christian left and the black caucus and the hispanic caucus and the feminists and prolifers and all manner of factions--

only in an addled ignorant imagination should all these people tow the party line in north-korean fashion and think as one. POWER IS NEGOTIATED, YOU FUCKING DOLT. every time "obama" (read "the executive branch") wants some legislation passed he (they) need(s) to talk and horse trade with every fucking faction to gain support. but no, you call this "a machine" and close your brain. fine. keep looking for all and every answer in your bong.

haha, you are so cute. You really do believe in all this theater don't you? Enough to get angry at me, when I am just the messenger. So let me get this straight, when your party blatantly lies to their constituency to "negotiate power" it is perfectly fine, but when the other guys do it you fear-monger rally against them for the same crime? Lies are lies, and when they cost human lives and cause misery and suffering to millions of people, then they are mutually wrong whomever the liar may be at time..

and yet for all your claims of worldly wisdom, you simply avoided the question of whether you had ACTUALLY ever done any community work or if it was just "good ideas of what to do" that you were offering.

I always click on this thread when I'm dead tired (like now). I'd love to join in and will another time.

But for now: what Suchfriends said.

(America was kicked out of Iraq by the way, as Suchfriends said. Obama virtually begged to be allowed to stay.)

Okay, Michelle Bachmann

but yeah, fine, FINE.

i need to go grocery shopping while suchfriends puts together his extensive community organizing resume. i'm sure he needs just a few more hours.

I'm sorry, I don't recall seeing you post yours?

This (in a slightly less bombastic tone)

"love it or leave it"

Didn't realize that was the replacement slogan for Si Su Puede ;)

then again..

Just a few points of correction for now:Hugely escalated their use.
He didn't particularly care. He never planned to close Guantanamo anyway, he was just going to relocate it on to US soil (hence the closure being blocked) and keep the same indefinite detention policy. And anyway there's less use for a Guantanamo under Obama because he just kills suspects rather than going through the messy process of actually capturing and imprisoning them. Not even Bush was despicable enough a human being to think of this one. Incidentally did you know that when Obama's drones kill a suspected terrorist that person is officially a terrorist until somebody comes forward to prove otherwise? So the figures for terrorist (never proven because there's never a trial) versus innocent civilian is skewed as a result. Human Rights Watch put the estimated figure of civilian to genuine target as 15:1 but admit that that's probably a pretty conservative estimate.
Escalated it.
No. I can't believe you're not aware of the facts surrounding the "withdrawal". They're common knowledge.


No attempt has been made to "clear up the mess" in foreign policy. It's just a continuation and in many cases an escalation.

Shhh.. you'll knock over !@#$%!'s sandcastle

In general i would say that Obamas administration hasnt differed very much from Bush's at all, in fact i think theyve dealt with killing people who need to be killed in a much more efficient way than Bush. Something i approve of.

If anything they havent shown ENOUGH military support for the liberals and reformers in the middle east - BTW that does not neccessarily mean a full scale land invasion, there are many other tactics available that can help reformers in those countries. There are special operations missions going on in Egypt, Syria, Libya right now, and more power to them. Im assuming you support liberal reformers in those countries, right?

For me, the American domestic policy is what offends me most, especially both your partys' attitude to healthcare, as well as to voting rights and yur willingless to send poor people (read; Black and Hispanic people) to jail for drug offences when white people get off. Thats something your country needs to sort out, but you dont need to neglect your internationalist responsibilities at the same time.

I'm aware that you're only trolling but on the basis that there are people who hold genuine similar views, do you really think that the Gulf monarchies would back "liberal reformers" in these countries?

And who are these people who need to be killed and who decides that and who decides the death penalty can be administered by one country in another country without even a trial?

Are you trolling?

Im not trolling actually, but i will answer you on Friday or saturday when ive had enough to drink to be bored enough to care about this futile conversaton

Pookie - 'Merica is an imperialistic country. It was since its inception-- the colony of an empire. It got its independence mainly so it could expand unfettered and bleed the slaves while eating the indians. I have no illusions about that. I don't expect the president of an imperialistic state to be a saint or to bring us "Paradise Now!" The best I can expect for he/she to be less terrible than the previous one-- and that he is.

The whole issue of Iraq is a lot more complicated pf course-- BUsh negotiated the agreements but his party was very much for staying in Iraq
Cheney: http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...raq/?mobile=nc
Bush's national security advisor: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...bFK_story.html
McCain: http://thepage.time.com/2011/12/14/r...ccain-on-iraq/

is that enough to show the difference you think?

here's mccain on iran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

oh, how funny he was with his little hands. You've also read Willard's latest statements on the Middle East I'm sure.

The issue for me is not whether we're going to meddle-- yes, American foreign policy is shit, I'm not arguing that-- I grew up in Latin America for fucks sakes. I live in what used to be Mexico (so does Suchfriends). Shit's absurd. We embargo communist Cuba but buy everything in communist China (this goes to the issue of votes and horse trading I was talking about earlier). The thing is, these things aren't done by supreme decree-- these things are negotiated and fought over for years--decades-- sometimes centuries like the slavery issue.

The election is not about whether this country is going to be run by saints-- in the foreign policy arena, it's about whether we're going to meddle with some semblance of rationality or by trying to fulfill the apocalyptic prophecies of a former cokehead.

And on that front I agree with Ikara Cult -- killing with precision, if you're intent on killing anything or anyone, is better than killing with daisy cutters and carpet bombing and destroyed water lines and invasion forces. Do I approve morally? No. Do I think this is the lesser of two evils? Yes I do. And lesser matters when it comes to "evll".

ON the domestic agenda, no contest-- President Willard would bring more austerity of the kind that's wrecking the British economy and social fabric. He would most certainly roll back the clock on gay rights (his church was the main player behind Prop 8), and would continue the policies that keep making the poor poorer and the rich richer. Women's rights? Ha ha ha. And universal health care? Forget the fuck about it-- he's washed his hands off his own work in Massachusetts. Teabaggers would run the budget-- look at Willard's fucking running mate.

So yeah, I get enraged when people say "it's the same". It's not the fucking same. The world is not clearly divided between the goodies and the baddies--we're all assholes of varying degrees, some worse than others, and the choice matters because it moves the needle of what's "normal" a little bit to one side or the other. And that counts for something today and in the long run.

since you ask

over the years, i've worked on things like:

- human rights (got tired of sending letters to governments and other shit)
- labor organization
- war protests (not just marching but organizing)
- rural electrification (satisfying, but not without side effects)
- voter registration (yeah, you don't approve, you prefer emperor-messiahs)
- affordable housing at municipal & state level
- university politics (both college + grad school... both largely pointless, but good for the experience)
- environmental crap. both advocacy and fieldwork.
- public health seems to be a recurrent theme. i'm currently involved in this through work and i can see the value of federal policy as it trickles to the community level.
- other shit i can't remember at this hour, fuck, i had a long day at work.

i've seen with my own eyes that people are rotten everyehwere, and they are good everywhere. the "machine" operates at every level, local work is connected with local politics and it goes up the chain to city, state, national, international, and everybody has a fucking ego, wants more power, has issues.

still, there are people who do, and there are people who just whine about it from the sidelines. fuck your useless good for nothing "nihilism". if things are so bad do something about it instead of crying like an internet bitch. stop trying to be a saint and a prophet and fucking do something instead.

I'll answer more fully later but in the meantime this stood out to me. The "precision" (lol) killing isn't an alternative to carpet bombing and invasion forces, it's an accompaniment. If anything the "precision" (rofl) killing is an alternative to the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists. And so being is by far the greater of two evils, especially as the "precision" (ffs) killing has claimed the innocent lives of at least 15 times the number of intended targets killed.

Otherwise, what you said leads me to believe we have more in common on this subject than I thought (possibly due to my scanning the thread rather than reading it properly?!).

This is interesting (not intended as a direct response to your points but on a similar subject):

Closer Than You Think: Top 15 Things Romney and Obama Agree On