1 year ago   •   87 notes   •   VIA: orbsteeb   •   SOURCE: orbsteeb
  • gourdsteve:

    a murder of crows. a flock of geese. a reluctance of obama voters.

    #obama  
    2 years ago   •   5 notes
  • are you serious that obama is a bad president
    Anonymous
    2 years ago   •   6 notes
  • I personally and my administration’s position is that legalisation is not the answer.

     -

    BBC News - Obama: ‘Drug legalisation not the answer to drug war’

    EARLIER:

    “My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that’s something I’m open to because there’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain. But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.” — November 24, 2007 town hall meeting in Iowa

    “I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” — August 21, 2007, event in Nashua, New Hampshire

    “I don’t think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using … medical marijuana. With all the things we’ve got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn’t be a high priority.” — June 2, 2007, town hall meeting in Laconia, New Hampshire

    “You know, it’s really not a good use of Justice Department resources.” — responding to whether the federal government should stop medical marijuana raids, August 13, 2007, town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire

    “The Justice Department going after sick individuals using [marijuana] as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense.” — July 21, 2007, town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire

    2 years ago   •   193 notes   •   VIA: anarcho-queer   •   SOURCE: anarcho-queer
  • occupyallstreets:

roksdude:

3liza:

ultralaser:

3liza:

collaterlysisters:

occupyallstreets:

Obama Indicts Sixth Whistleblower Under the Espionage Act
On April 3, 2012, the Obama administration indicted intelligence whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou is the sixth whistleblower that the Obama administration has charged under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information – more than all past administrations combined. In a rare move, the indictment was sealed until today.
Kiriakou is a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) veteran who headed counterterrorism operations in Pakistan after 9/11, organized the team operation that captured suspected al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, and refused to be trained in torture interrogation tactics.
In December 2007, Kiriakou gave an on-camera interview to ABC News in which he disclosed that Zubaydah was “waterboarded” and that “waterboarding” was torture. Kiriakou was one of the first CIA officers to label waterboarding as torture, and his interview helped expose the CIA’s torture program as policy, rather than the actions of a few rogue agents. Kiriakou further exposed the CIA’s torture program and the CIA’s deception about torture even to its own employees in his 2009 book, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror.
Government Accountability Project (GAP) National Security & Human Rights Director Jesselyn Radack, a Department of Justice (DOJ) whistleblower herself, represented National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Thomas Drake, the first individual indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act for disclosing massive waste, fraud, abuse and illegality at the NSA through proper channels. The DOJ case against Drake fell apart days before the trial was set to begin last summer, in what was widely seen as a bellwether case for future prosecutions, like that of Kiriakou.
Read More

disgusting

tldr obama is destroying a dude who called out CIA torture methods.  reminder that obama is a bad president.
#obama #obama is a bad president #vote vermin supreme 2012

waaaaaait a second, did you just call obama //vermin supreme//?
because if you’re calling our black president vermin because you don’t like some of his policies, sorry but that’s super racist.  if however you’re just trying to play the card that //all politicians// are equally bad, i call ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT on that.  
let’s be real here.  if you want to complain that obama hasn’t strong-armed the republican congress into a new new deal, that’s he’s compromised too much and failed to hold them accountable for their obstructionism, hey, i don’t disagree.  but the gop frontrunners are a delusional billionaire who’s mocking obama for going to the exact same ivy league school he did, and a white supremacist christian soldier who just called obama a n***** ON CAMERA.
i’m not going to pretend obama hasn’t done some shit i disagree with, but do i really need to pull out a list of all the things he’s actually accomplished that were unequivocally good, THAT THE REPUBLICANS WOULDN’T HAVE EVEN CONSIDERED?!  //listen to the gop rhetoric// and stop pretending that they aren’t relevant to this equation.

this is vermin supreme:

also yes lol go ahead and post that list of all the cool shit obama has done.  to give you a head start, here is a complete list of campaign promises he’s kept:
1. repealed don’t ask don’t tell2. stop the DoJ from wasting time and money persecuting legal marijuana operations:

“I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” — August 21, 2007, event in Nashua, New Hampshire

3. hmmm

4. Provided a stimulus package that prevented a modern day depression.5. Passed National Healthcare to compete with large insurance monopolies. 6. KILLED MOTHERFUCKING OSAMA QUIT FUCKING CAMPLAINING

7. Approved 30,000 drones to be used in America
8. Declared America a battlefield and allowed himself to indefinitely detain anyone without charge or trail. See NDAA.
9. Ordered an airstrike in Yemen which killed 14 women and 21 children then covered it up. When a journalist exposed Obama he then had him detained without charge in Yemen.
10.Illegally assassinated two American citizens.
11. Signed the NDRP which will allow him to seize control of all food, transportation, water supply, health service/supply, etc. in case of an ‘emergency’.
12. Planned the largest digital spying scheme in American history with the biggest ISP’s.
13. Funded the NYPD to spy on Muslims.
14. Armed Bahrain’s monarch which is killing pro-democracy protesters.
Should I go on?

    occupyallstreets:

    roksdude:

    3liza:

    ultralaser:

    3liza:

    collaterlysisters:

    occupyallstreets:

    Obama Indicts Sixth Whistleblower Under the Espionage Act

    On April 3, 2012, the Obama administration indicted intelligence whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou is the sixth whistleblower that the Obama administration has charged under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information – more than all past administrations combined. In a rare move, the indictment was sealed until today.

    Kiriakou is a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) veteran who headed counterterrorism operations in Pakistan after 9/11, organized the team operation that captured suspected al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, and refused to be trained in torture interrogation tactics.

    In December 2007, Kiriakou gave an on-camera interview to ABC News in which he disclosed that Zubaydah was “waterboarded” and that “waterboarding” was torture. Kiriakou was one of the first CIA officers to label waterboarding as torture, and his interview helped expose the CIA’s torture program as policy, rather than the actions of a few rogue agents. Kiriakou further exposed the CIA’s torture program and the CIA’s deception about torture even to its own employees in his 2009 book, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror.

    Government Accountability Project (GAP) National Security & Human Rights Director Jesselyn Radack, a Department of Justice (DOJ) whistleblower herself, represented National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Thomas Drake, the first individual indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act for disclosing massive waste, fraud, abuse and illegality at the NSA through proper channels. The DOJ case against Drake fell apart days before the trial was set to begin last summer, in what was widely seen as a bellwether case for future prosecutions, like that of Kiriakou.

    Read More

    disgusting

    tldr obama is destroying a dude who called out CIA torture methods.  reminder that obama is a bad president.

    #obama #obama is a bad president #vote vermin supreme 2012

    waaaaaait a second, did you just call obama //vermin supreme//?

    because if you’re calling our black president vermin because you don’t like some of his policies, sorry but that’s super racist.  if however you’re just trying to play the card that //all politicians// are equally bad, i call ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT on that.  

    let’s be real here.  if you want to complain that obama hasn’t strong-armed the republican congress into a new new deal, that’s he’s compromised too much and failed to hold them accountable for their obstructionism, hey, i don’t disagree.  but the gop frontrunners are a delusional billionaire who’s mocking obama for going to the exact same ivy league school he did, and a white supremacist christian soldier who just called obama a n***** ON CAMERA.

    i’m not going to pretend obama hasn’t done some shit i disagree with, but do i really need to pull out a list of all the things he’s actually accomplished that were unequivocally good, THAT THE REPUBLICANS WOULDN’T HAVE EVEN CONSIDERED?!  //listen to the gop rhetoric// and stop pretending that they aren’t relevant to this equation.

    this is vermin supreme:

    also yes lol go ahead and post that list of all the cool shit obama has done.  to give you a head start, here is a complete list of campaign promises he’s kept:

    1. repealed don’t ask don’t tell
    2. stop the DoJ from wasting time and money persecuting legal marijuana operations:

    “I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” — August 21, 2007, event in Nashua, New Hampshire


    3. hmmm

    4. Provided a stimulus package that prevented a modern day depression.

    5. Passed National Healthcare to compete with large insurance monopolies. 

    6. KILLED MOTHERFUCKING OSAMA QUIT FUCKING CAMPLAINING

    7. Approved 30,000 drones to be used in America

    8. Declared America a battlefield and allowed himself to indefinitely detain anyone without charge or trail. See NDAA.

    9. Ordered an airstrike in Yemen which killed 14 women and 21 children then covered it up. When a journalist exposed Obama he then had him detained without charge in Yemen.

    10.Illegally assassinated two American citizens.

    11. Signed the NDRP which will allow him to seize control of all food, transportation, water supply, health service/supply, etc. in case of an ‘emergency’.

    12. Planned the largest digital spying scheme in American history with the biggest ISP’s.

    13. Funded the NYPD to spy on Muslims.

    14. Armed Bahrain’s monarch which is killing pro-democracy protesters.

    Should I go on?

    2 years ago   •   193 notes   •   VIA: ultralaser   •   SOURCE: anarcho-queer
  • ultralaser:

3liza:

collaterlysisters:

occupyallstreets:

Obama Indicts Sixth Whistleblower Under the Espionage Act
On April 3, 2012, the Obama administration indicted intelligence whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou is the sixth whistleblower that the Obama administration has charged under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information – more than all past administrations combined. In a rare move, the indictment was sealed until today.
Kiriakou is a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) veteran who headed counterterrorism operations in Pakistan after 9/11, organized the team operation that captured suspected al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, and refused to be trained in torture interrogation tactics.
In December 2007, Kiriakou gave an on-camera interview to ABC News in which he disclosed that Zubaydah was “waterboarded” and that “waterboarding” was torture. Kiriakou was one of the first CIA officers to label waterboarding as torture, and his interview helped expose the CIA’s torture program as policy, rather than the actions of a few rogue agents. Kiriakou further exposed the CIA’s torture program and the CIA’s deception about torture even to its own employees in his 2009 book, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror.
Government Accountability Project (GAP) National Security & Human Rights Director Jesselyn Radack, a Department of Justice (DOJ) whistleblower herself, represented National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Thomas Drake, the first individual indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act for disclosing massive waste, fraud, abuse and illegality at the NSA through proper channels. The DOJ case against Drake fell apart days before the trial was set to begin last summer, in what was widely seen as a bellwether case for future prosecutions, like that of Kiriakou.
Read More

disgusting

tldr obama is destroying a dude who called out CIA torture methods.  reminder that obama is a bad president.
#obama #obama is a bad president #vote vermin supreme 2012

waaaaaait a second, did you just call obama //vermin supreme//?
because if you’re calling our black president vermin because you don’t like some of his policies, sorry but that’s super racist.  if however you’re just trying to play the card that //all politicians// are equally bad, i call ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT on that.  
let’s be real here.  if you want to complain that obama hasn’t strong-armed the republican congress into a new new deal, that’s he’s compromised too much and failed to hold them accountable for their obstructionism, hey, i don’t disagree.  but the gop frontrunners are a delusional billionaire who’s mocking obama for going to the exact same ivy league school he did, and a white supremacist christian soldier who just called obama a n***** ON CAMERA.
i’m not going to pretend obama hasn’t done some shit i disagree with, but do i really need to pull out a list of all the things he’s actually accomplished that were unequivocally good, THAT THE REPUBLICANS WOULDN’T HAVE EVEN CONSIDERED?!  //listen to the gop rhetoric// and stop pretending that they aren’t relevant to this equation.

this is vermin supreme:

also yes lol go ahead and post that list of all the cool shit obama has done.  to give you a head start, here is a complete list of campaign promises he’s kept:
1. repealed don’t ask don’t tell2. stop the DoJ from wasting time and money persecuting legal marijuana operations:

“My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that’s something I’m open to because there’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain. But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.” — November 24, 2007 town hall meeting in Iowa
“I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” — August 21, 2007, event in Nashua, New Hampshire
“I don’t think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using … medical marijuana. With all the things we’ve got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn’t be a high priority.” — June 2, 2007, town hall meeting in Laconia, New Hampshire
“You know, it’s really not a good use of Justice Department resources.” — responding to whether the federal government should stop medical marijuana raids, August 13, 2007, town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire
“The Justice Department going after sick individuals using [marijuana] as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense.” — July 21, 2007, town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire

3. ?????
edit: oh lol obama also apparently promised to officially disapprove of torture.  it’s nice to know that he officially disapproves of torture, but will also fucking end you if you tattle on his police dogs.  thanks buddy

    ultralaser:

    3liza:

    collaterlysisters:

    occupyallstreets:

    Obama Indicts Sixth Whistleblower Under the Espionage Act

    On April 3, 2012, the Obama administration indicted intelligence whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou is the sixth whistleblower that the Obama administration has charged under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information – more than all past administrations combined. In a rare move, the indictment was sealed until today.

    Kiriakou is a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) veteran who headed counterterrorism operations in Pakistan after 9/11, organized the team operation that captured suspected al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, and refused to be trained in torture interrogation tactics.

    In December 2007, Kiriakou gave an on-camera interview to ABC News in which he disclosed that Zubaydah was “waterboarded” and that “waterboarding” was torture. Kiriakou was one of the first CIA officers to label waterboarding as torture, and his interview helped expose the CIA’s torture program as policy, rather than the actions of a few rogue agents. Kiriakou further exposed the CIA’s torture program and the CIA’s deception about torture even to its own employees in his 2009 book, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror.

    Government Accountability Project (GAP) National Security & Human Rights Director Jesselyn Radack, a Department of Justice (DOJ) whistleblower herself, represented National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Thomas Drake, the first individual indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act for disclosing massive waste, fraud, abuse and illegality at the NSA through proper channels. The DOJ case against Drake fell apart days before the trial was set to begin last summer, in what was widely seen as a bellwether case for future prosecutions, like that of Kiriakou.

    Read More

    disgusting

    tldr obama is destroying a dude who called out CIA torture methods.  reminder that obama is a bad president.

    #obama #obama is a bad president #vote vermin supreme 2012

    waaaaaait a second, did you just call obama //vermin supreme//?

    because if you’re calling our black president vermin because you don’t like some of his policies, sorry but that’s super racist.  if however you’re just trying to play the card that //all politicians// are equally bad, i call ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT on that.  

    let’s be real here.  if you want to complain that obama hasn’t strong-armed the republican congress into a new new deal, that’s he’s compromised too much and failed to hold them accountable for their obstructionism, hey, i don’t disagree.  but the gop frontrunners are a delusional billionaire who’s mocking obama for going to the exact same ivy league school he did, and a white supremacist christian soldier who just called obama a n***** ON CAMERA.

    i’m not going to pretend obama hasn’t done some shit i disagree with, but do i really need to pull out a list of all the things he’s actually accomplished that were unequivocally good, THAT THE REPUBLICANS WOULDN’T HAVE EVEN CONSIDERED?!  //listen to the gop rhetoric// and stop pretending that they aren’t relevant to this equation.

    this is vermin supreme:

    also yes lol go ahead and post that list of all the cool shit obama has done.  to give you a head start, here is a complete list of campaign promises he’s kept:

    1. repealed don’t ask don’t tell
    2. stop the DoJ from wasting time and money persecuting legal marijuana operations:

    “My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that’s something I’m open to because there’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain. But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.” — November 24, 2007 town hall meeting in Iowa

    “I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” — August 21, 2007, event in Nashua, New Hampshire

    “I don’t think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using … medical marijuana. With all the things we’ve got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn’t be a high priority.” — June 2, 2007, town hall meeting in Laconia, New Hampshire

    “You know, it’s really not a good use of Justice Department resources.” — responding to whether the federal government should stop medical marijuana raids, August 13, 2007, town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire

    “The Justice Department going after sick individuals using [marijuana] as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense.” — July 21, 2007, town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire


    3. ?????

    edit: oh lol obama also apparently promised to officially disapprove of torture.  it’s nice to know that he officially disapproves of torture, but will also fucking end you if you tattle on his police dogs.  thanks buddy

    2 years ago   •   193 notes   •   VIA: collaterlysisters   •   SOURCE: anarcho-queer
  • collaterlysisters:

occupyallstreets:

Obama Indicts Sixth Whistleblower Under the Espionage Act
On April 3, 2012, the Obama administration indicted intelligence whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou is the sixth whistleblower that the Obama administration has charged under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information – more than all past administrations combined. In a rare move, the indictment was sealed until today.
Kiriakou is a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) veteran who headed counterterrorism operations in Pakistan after 9/11, organized the team operation that captured suspected al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, and refused to be trained in torture interrogation tactics.
In December 2007, Kiriakou gave an on-camera interview to ABC News in which he disclosed that Zubaydah was “waterboarded” and that “waterboarding” was torture. Kiriakou was one of the first CIA officers to label waterboarding as torture, and his interview helped expose the CIA’s torture program as policy, rather than the actions of a few rogue agents. Kiriakou further exposed the CIA’s torture program and the CIA’s deception about torture even to its own employees in his 2009 book, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror.
Government Accountability Project (GAP) National Security & Human Rights Director Jesselyn Radack, a Department of Justice (DOJ) whistleblower herself, represented National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Thomas Drake, the first individual indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act for disclosing massive waste, fraud, abuse and illegality at the NSA through proper channels. The DOJ case against Drake fell apart days before the trial was set to begin last summer, in what was widely seen as a bellwether case for future prosecutions, like that of Kiriakou.
Read More

disgusting

tldr obama is destroying a dude who called out CIA torture methods.  reminder that obama is a bad president.

    collaterlysisters:

    occupyallstreets:

    Obama Indicts Sixth Whistleblower Under the Espionage Act

    On April 3, 2012, the Obama administration indicted intelligence whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou is the sixth whistleblower that the Obama administration has charged under the Espionage Act for the alleged mishandling of classified information – more than all past administrations combined. In a rare move, the indictment was sealed until today.

    Kiriakou is a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) veteran who headed counterterrorism operations in Pakistan after 9/11, organized the team operation that captured suspected al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, and refused to be trained in torture interrogation tactics.

    In December 2007, Kiriakou gave an on-camera interview to ABC News in which he disclosed that Zubaydah was “waterboarded” and that “waterboarding” was torture. Kiriakou was one of the first CIA officers to label waterboarding as torture, and his interview helped expose the CIA’s torture program as policy, rather than the actions of a few rogue agents. Kiriakou further exposed the CIA’s torture program and the CIA’s deception about torture even to its own employees in his 2009 book, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror.

    Government Accountability Project (GAP) National Security & Human Rights Director Jesselyn Radack, a Department of Justice (DOJ) whistleblower herself, represented National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Thomas Drake, the first individual indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act for disclosing massive waste, fraud, abuse and illegality at the NSA through proper channels. The DOJ case against Drake fell apart days before the trial was set to begin last summer, in what was widely seen as a bellwether case for future prosecutions, like that of Kiriakou.

    Read More

    disgusting

    tldr obama is destroying a dude who called out CIA torture methods.  reminder that obama is a bad president.

    2 years ago   •   670 notes   •   VIA: donc-desole   •   SOURCE: donc-desole
  • donc-desole:

Obama Care
Yes you can…

    donc-desole:

    Obama Care

    Yes you can…

    2 years ago   •   50 notes
  • Spy x Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack H. Obama OTP

    Spy x Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack H. Obama OTP

    2 years ago   •   15 notes
  • The vast majority of ICE detainees have no access to counsel. (ABA 2/2010) Half of ICE detainees are kept in private prisons (ACLU 11/1/11); detainees in both private and public detention centers are subject to sexual abuse (ACLU), physical abuse and lack of medical care (ACLU 10/24/11), lack of access to counsel (ACLU 11/17/11, ABA 2/2010)

    2 years ago   •   127 notes   •   VIA: catbountry   •   SOURCE: yeenking-deactivated20131007
  • Just so we’re clear on this, we now have a candidate who wants to cut off welfare funding to black people running against a candidate who wants to lecture the NAACP on food stamps running against a candidate who has years of newsletters about the coming race war with his name on them running against a candidate whose family bought the Niggerhead Ranch running against a candidate who made up a story about having to pull over to the side of the road because he was crying so hard when his church let black people join.

    All of whom are running against the first black President of the United States.

     -

    (via antistellar)

    …who is a terrible president anyway, a man who literally betrayed a generation, and against whom there are no reasonable democratic candidates, so we’re completely fucked this election, moreso even than usual, and everyone should be saving up for their coming exodus or alcoholism, respectively!

    2 years ago   •   12 notes
  • The Department of Homeland Security’s has rescinded the Secure Communities agreement memos with various jurisdictions and announced that compliance with the program is mandatory, despite legislation to the contrary. (IPC 11/29/11, Restore Fairness 8/8/11)

    2 years ago   •   7 notes
  • Border Patrol has more agents than it’s ever had before (White House 5/2011) and ICE’s budget has risen to nearly $6 billion. Despite a stated policy of targeting high-level criminals, the majority of those deported under ICE’s “Secure Communities” program have only misdemeanor convictions or no conviction at all. (Deportation Nation 5/25/11)

    2 years ago   •   52 notes   •   VIA: notedyounghistorian   •   SOURCE: fuckyeahmarxismleninism
  • Boots Riley: No matter what party is voted in... 

    fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

    No matter what party is voted in — Democrat, Republican, Green, or whatever — politicians are controlled by whoever controls industry. 

    Under Capitalism, that is the ruling class.

    It’s not about personality or even intention. If I, as a communist, were elected as president- I would be powerless to enact any of my ideas as long as the economic system is capitalist. In order to even think I might get anything passed, I’d have to “play the game”. “The game” is oppression and exploitation.

    NONE of the major progressive changes that have come about in the last 100 years have come due to electing the right person into office. 

    Labor laws, the weekend, and the 8 hour day came as a result of strikes and physical battles between workers and the police.

    The New Deal (which brought MediCare, Welfare, and Social Security) happened at a time when the Communist Party, USA, had a million card-carrying members and millions of other sympathizers. People were shutting down factories and having strikes all over the country. Places like Montana, Utah, Michigan, and Alabama were called “hotbeds of Communist Activity” by Hoover. FDR was actually afraid there would be a revolution. That’s how those gains happened.

    The Civil Rights Act happened because people were in the streets and in places of business, stopping commerce. Kennedy had made statements previously that were against a bill of that sort. But it was a necessary concession to stop a movement from growing that might demand even more.

    Affirmative Action was passed under NIXON! Not because he cared about people- he was a right-wing racist, but because he, too, was scared of revolution. There was a mass, mostly radical movement at the time and there were revolutions happening all over the world. That legislation was passed as a concession to the movement.

    The only way we’re going to make substantive change is by making those that control industry lose profit, forcing them to choose between meeting our demands- which would mean they make less profit- and making no profit at all. 

    Strikes, shutdowns, and militant labor struggles. They used to be the language of an effective left.

    Again, politicians are controlled by whoever controls industry. If we want to control the politicians, the people must make a movement in which we control industry through strikes, shut downs, and militant unions.

    Once you have this, politicians in office will make legislation that attempts to at least seem like it benefits the people. Until then, it won’t matter who you elect- they’ll be forced to make decisions that hurt the people.

    50’s McCarthyism, the New Left of the 60’s focus on students, and the proliferation of foundation-controlled non-profits have moved our tactics away from those effective tools.

    There was a huge Anti-War movement in the US, but it got turned into a pro-Kerry movement for the 2004 elections, and that KILLED the Anti-War movement. It was almost non-existent after the elections. The Anti-War movement got built up again and was growing immensely, then it got turned into the pro-Obama campaign of 2008. The Anti-War movement was pretty much gone after that election. Electoral campaigns take massive amounts of time and energy from thousands of people, and there is an “end-game”, a “finish line” that allows people to go home after an election- this is why electoral campaigns kill grassroots movements.

    There is no historical evidence to support the idea that we can change the system through elections, yet many on the left keep pushing this.

    Why? 

    Because we don’t think we have the ability to create a large enough movement. But we do have that ability. 

    It’s called the Occupy Wall Street movement. Join the one in your area. It may not look or work exactly the way you want it to right now, but give it some of your time and energy — help shape it, it’s only a few months old.

    And please don’t try to turn the OWS movement into an electoral campaign. That is a quick way to kill the movement. Whoever you get into office will then not be effective anyway because there will be no movement that forces politicians to act like they’re on the side of the people.

    fuckin’ a right on

    2 years ago   •   9,881 notes   •   VIA: 3liza   •   SOURCE: dummiesinpublic
  • 3liza:

kgbigelow:

catbountry:

the-el:

stfuconservatives:

radioinactivity:

kiddblink:

le-me-in-a-hat:

Real

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/31/396018/breaking-obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill/

TL;DR The President’s opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don’t seem to realize they’ve been tricked into being angry at the wrong person.
He signed it because if he didn’t, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I’ll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President’s wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.
You’ll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn’t coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President’s stated mandate - they are effectively a giant ‘fuck you’ to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President’s support with his own base. Observe:

Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.


Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political shitstorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.


Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)


Here’s where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party’s base and the opposition’s. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to ‘Keep America safe’ and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent’s liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that’s what they care about most. You’ve designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don’t even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.


Pass the ‘parent’ legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military’s operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent’s base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won’t matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.


Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It’s a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.

This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don’t know or don’t care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this ‘corporate shill’, congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don’t seem to see that. You don’t have to like your country’s two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it’s being used like this.
EDIT: thanks to Reddit user Mauve_Cubedweller for this post





Absolute horseshit.  And here’s why:

Second, as I documented at length last week, Obama’s veto threat was never about  substantive objections to the detention powers vested by this bill; put  another way, he was never objecting to the bill on civil liberties  grounds. Obama, as I documented last week and again below, is not an opponent of indefinite detention; he’s a vigorous proponent of it, as evidenced by his continuous, multi-faceted embrace of that policy.

Read the rest of the reasons why Obama was always going to embrace the NDAA wholeheartedly here: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/








Wait!  There’s more!

    3liza:

    kgbigelow:

    catbountry:

    the-el:

    stfuconservatives:

    radioinactivity:

    kiddblink:

    le-me-in-a-hat:

    Real

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/31/396018/breaking-obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill/

    TL;DR The President’s opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don’t seem to realize they’ve been tricked into being angry at the wrong person.

    He signed it because if he didn’t, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I’ll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President’s wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.

    You’ll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn’t coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President’s stated mandate - they are effectively a giant ‘fuck you’ to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President’s support with his own base. Observe:

    1. Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.

    2. Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political shitstorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.

    3. Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)

    4. Here’s where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party’s base and the opposition’s. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to ‘Keep America safe’ and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent’s liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that’s what they care about most. You’ve designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don’t even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.

    5. Pass the ‘parent’ legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military’s operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent’s base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won’t matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.

    6. Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It’s a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.

    This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don’t know or don’t care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this ‘corporate shill’, congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don’t seem to see that. You don’t have to like your country’s two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it’s being used like this.

    EDIT: thanks to Reddit user Mauve_Cubedweller for this post

    Absolute horseshit.  And here’s why:

    Second, as I documented at length last week, Obama’s veto threat was never about substantive objections to the detention powers vested by this bill; put another way, he was never objecting to the bill on civil liberties grounds. Obama, as I documented last week and again below, is not an opponent of indefinite detention; he’s a vigorous proponent of it, as evidenced by his continuous, multi-faceted embrace of that policy.

    Read the rest of the reasons why Obama was always going to embrace the NDAA wholeheartedly here: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

    Wait!  There’s more!

    2 years ago   •   9,881 notes   •   VIA: kgbigelow-deactivated20120114   •   SOURCE: dummiesinpublic
  • kgbigelow:

catbountry:

the-el:

stfuconservatives:

radioinactivity:

kiddblink:

le-me-in-a-hat:

Real

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/31/396018/breaking-obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill/

TL;DR The President’s opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don’t seem to realize they’ve been tricked into being angry at the wrong person.
He signed it because if he didn’t, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I’ll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President’s wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.
You’ll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn’t coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President’s stated mandate - they are effectively a giant ‘fuck you’ to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President’s support with his own base. Observe:

Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.


Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political shitstorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.


Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)


Here’s where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party’s base and the opposition’s. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to ‘Keep America safe’ and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent’s liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that’s what they care about most. You’ve designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don’t even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.


Pass the ‘parent’ legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military’s operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent’s base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won’t matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.


Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It’s a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.

This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don’t know or don’t care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this ‘corporate shill’, congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don’t seem to see that. You don’t have to like your country’s two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it’s being used like this.
EDIT: thanks to Reddit user Mauve_Cubedweller for this post






Absolute horseshit.  And here’s why:


Second, as I documented at length last week, Obama’s veto threat was never about  substantive objections to the detention powers vested by this bill; put  another way, he was never objecting to the bill on civil liberties  grounds. Obama, as I documented last week and again below, is not an opponent of indefinite detention; he’s a vigorous proponent of it, as evidenced by his continuous, multi-faceted embrace of that policy.

Read the rest of the reasons why Obama was always going to embrace the NDAA wholeheartedly here: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

    kgbigelow:

    catbountry:

    the-el:

    stfuconservatives:

    radioinactivity:

    kiddblink:

    le-me-in-a-hat:

    Real

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/31/396018/breaking-obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill/

    TL;DR The President’s opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don’t seem to realize they’ve been tricked into being angry at the wrong person.

    He signed it because if he didn’t, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I’ll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President’s wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.

    You’ll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn’t coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President’s stated mandate - they are effectively a giant ‘fuck you’ to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President’s support with his own base. Observe:

    1. Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.

    2. Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political shitstorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.

    3. Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)

    4. Here’s where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party’s base and the opposition’s. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to ‘Keep America safe’ and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent’s liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that’s what they care about most. You’ve designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don’t even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.

    5. Pass the ‘parent’ legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military’s operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent’s base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won’t matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.

    6. Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It’s a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.

    This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don’t know or don’t care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this ‘corporate shill’, congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don’t seem to see that. You don’t have to like your country’s two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it’s being used like this.

    EDIT: thanks to Reddit user Mauve_Cubedweller for this post

    Absolute horseshit.  And here’s why:

    Second, as I documented at length last week, Obama’s veto threat was never about substantive objections to the detention powers vested by this bill; put another way, he was never objecting to the bill on civil liberties grounds. Obama, as I documented last week and again below, is not an opponent of indefinite detention; he’s a vigorous proponent of it, as evidenced by his continuous, multi-faceted embrace of that policy.

    Read the rest of the reasons why Obama was always going to embrace the NDAA wholeheartedly here: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

    Next