Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

.......something I thank God for every night as well. I'm thankful that I wasn't born an airhead needy woman, a minority with an inferiority complex that dictates how they vote, a gay who wants to get married, a union worker who has no power to keep their jobs, a wealthy urban numbnut who has a financial stake in government debt and a financial stake in a market that requires regular government bailouts and injections of future tax dollars via government to compete or sustain itself, a government recipient who is reliant on the financial stabilty and capabilty of government or a public employee who is reliant on the system they just voted against. How much rope is needs to be fed to the Democrats to politically hang themselves? I'm content with feeding them as much rope as they need. Obama just bought himself four years of misery and earning the faith, sustaining the hope and retaining the support of dimwits and social pathetics.

You know, you've been saying this crap for years now; ever wonder that you might actually be wrong or is questioning your own belief system just too traumatic for you?

Before you blow a gasket, maybe you should go outside and yell at the kids to get off the lawn or something. Yeessh.

Originally Posted by The Rani

We're looking at an economic contraction, for sure.
What went up still has a long way to come down.

I agree. I'm just glad that I'm not in a position to take a huge fall finacially or a Democrat who has a ton of financial/social promises and obligations to keep and larger populations to manage/ control.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Well, there is nothing in Obama's history to show that he will compromise. All he's done since the day he took office (before, actually) is attack Republicans. It seems to be all he knows how to do when someone disagrees with him, just like his base of left wing supporters. Regardless of any possible compromise on the budget, Obamacare will not be repealed, which is all it takes to guarantee the economy will not improve.

I'm just hoping no new, major bad thing happens, because that could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, producing a really bad outcome for the country. Another recession, another major terrorist attack, anything like that. This whole society is being held together with scotch tape right now.

The ACA is all one big compromise ... virtually identical to the Heritage Foundation paper of the subject.

Where is the compromise from your side?

Tester reclaims his Senate seat in Montana. That's a 55-45 split with a net Senate gain of 2 for Dems.

Just 5 GOP have to cross the aisle on things like immigration. Can McConnell keep them penned up for another 4 years??? I don't think so.

Mitch McConnell's #1 priority of keeping Obama to one term by obstruction sure worked out for him.

Obama is still there, he doesn't have Senate Majority and worst, he has to deal with House T-baggers.

He's up for re-election in 2014 and will be 72 years old; maybe time for him or the voters to retire him?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I agree. I'm just glad that I'm not in a position to take a huge fall finacially or a Democrat who has a ton of financial/social promises and obligations to keep and larger populations to manage/ control.

Translation - I'm glad I don't have a lot of money to loss.

Sort of like - I'm glad we didn't win the election because we would have to do something.

I'm glad you think this way.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In case you guys missed this one on the other thread:

The downfall of the American empire has begun. It could be that the country's citizens wouldn't be able to stop it no matter how hard they tried. But they aren't even trying.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-865437.html

Well, yeah. But, what are we going to do about it?

Or more accurately, who cares? I'm not a big fan of empire, myself, and I see the world shifting toward regional spheres of economic influence. There could be imperialistic aspects to that, but it depends how it is carried out.

Ponder how great it would be if one could vote for the imaginary/fantasy Obama which, alas, sadly exists only in the paranoid imagination of those who populate the fever-swamps of the right-wing: the Kenyan anti-colonialist on the angry warpath against American militarism and oligarchy, engineering Apology Tours for America's past sins and vengeance-based retribution for thieving Wall Street tycoons.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Absolutely nothing is going to change over the next two years. And year 3-4 I seriously doubt anything will change as well. The Democrats will not, and you can call this an Eric prophecy from his 8-ball (although I preferred the 8-balls I had when I used to live in Atlanta as a younger person - ahem) - re-win Congress overall in 2014 either. The Republicans will hold Congress as Obama will not become a master statesman as Clinton was able to accomplish in his second term.

The verdict on tonight? We are deadlocked as a nation for the next four years. There will be no accomplishment or achievement for our nation over the next four years. The win of Obama tonight will almost 100% guarantee the election of someone along the lines of Christie or Rand Paul in 2016 (personally I'm rooting for Rand Paul for a change from politics as "usual" though I think that's more of a personal dream as opposed to reality in which Christie will probably carry 2016).

Ultimately, the re-election of Obama tonight will almost guarantee the victory of a re-invigorated Republican party in 2016.

j.p.

If this plays out, then count on even less cooperation from the Dems in 2017 than the Reps have provided to date ... and the Dems have the evolving demographic edge.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Debs, people who say these things don't even have a working knowledge of the definition of "empire."

I can buy (and actually support) maybe hegemony in certain spheres or places, but "empire"??? That sort of discredits not only the writer but anyone who takes the time to post such horseshit.

No, your trained response to vocabulary is utter horseshit.

A hegemon is a specific type of imperial arrangement: empire refers to imperialism in general.

Noam Chomsky has a word or two to say about how political language is booby trapped to control and prevent discussion... but thank you for providing such a quintessential example of the concept in practice.

Originally Posted by JDFP

If you think Scalia (i.e. the greatest Supreme Court justice we have) is going to retire over the next four years outside of something known as death you are nuts.

j.p.

No, but I could see him going to jail. He's got some sleazy friends, and operates in the dark a lot of the time.

Originally Posted by JDFP

I look forward to him trying. Like I said, and I'll stand by it, Obama won't do a damn thing in the next two years - it won't pass Congress. Boehner and others will stand up to his bullshit and rub it off their sleeves.

j.p.

So let me understand this. GOP intrasigence is a matter of courage and honor. If the same tactic is followed by Obama, it's unacceptable obstructionism, and a sign of weakness.

Got it.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'll take all the Trumps and the corportations and the vast majority of business and all the workers and you can have the rest.

Take them where, and why would they go?

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

No, your trained response to vocabulary is utter horseshit.

A hegemon is a specific type of imperial arrangement: empire refers to imperialism in general.

Noam Chomsky has a word or two to say about how political language is booby trapped to control and prevent discussion... but thank you for providing such a quintessential example of the concept in practice.

Sorry, you seem to have some horseshit in your eye.

Let's go to Websters -

- a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state

With that definition it would be exceedingly hard to argue that the US federal govt is an empire over its own states or people, let alone anyone outside our borders.

On the other hand, hegemony, according to Webster -

preponderant influence or authority over others

I think Justin Beaver currently is the hegemon over a lot of pre-teen girls, but fortunately that is usually short-lived before another hegemon comes along (sorry, Eric).

Originally Posted by The Rani

Comments like this are why conservatives talk about Obama turning us into a third world country.
Not that I'm an imperialist ... but I don't think that most Americans realize how good we really have it. Especially ones who have never left the first and second "worlds."
But it looks like they might very well find out, the hard way. I'm ok with that, but I have a feeling that I'll be in the minority if and when the time comes.

How do you even get from point A to B like that?

There is not a binary choice between empire and third-world status.

Originally Posted by Deb C

The conversation needs to be about how we will keep him accountable this term instead of more excuses for why he had to expand the Bush policies.

You couldn't -- or, more accurately, wouldn't -- do it back when there was at least the theoretical threat of no-second-term. You put him back now, without even that hope-of-a-lever.

Otherwise, we are totally screwed.

"Otherwise"??

The subjunctive implied by 'otherwise' requires at least some sort of conceivably-plausible counterfactual. The word you're looking for in it's place, if you're not happy omitting that first one altogether is "therefore". In any case, self-deception is a thing distasteful and to be avoided.

----
-edit-
On the gripping hand, 'totally screwed' as a consequence of one's ruler, while a thing that happens in reality, is not a rational descriptor in this case.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I hope the opportunity comes to put you and your views to the test.

A lot of this is already happening. The Blue states support the Red states, and have since the time of FDR. The regional party thing is a longer-term issue, but feel free to work on it

- to fear mongering and obstructionism?

It's all they got -

Defying Expectations, Obama Handily Wins Popular Vote
November 7, 2012 | Posted by Nick Chiles

It looks like President Obama won the popular vote after all.

For weeks, as Mitt Romney climbed in the polls after the first presidential debate, we heard predictions that the election results could be split—Obama could win the electoral college while Romney took the popular vote. Even before Nov. 6, this was prompting calls for the country to come together and finally abolish the antiquated electoral college system, a relic from an era when the Founding Fathers didn’t trust the unwashed wretches—white men—that made up the U.S. population enough to entrust something as important as the presidential election to them.

Well, none of that craziness transpired. Obama’s win was complete. As of this morning, it appears that the president received 59,584,123 votes, compared to Romney’s tally of 56,961,230. For those who don’t want to pull out the cellphone calculators, that’s a margin of 2,622,893 votes. Percentage-wise, Obama won 50.3 percent of the nation’s vote, while Romney got 48.1 percent—a margin of 2.2 percent, which was bigger than JFK’s edge over Nixon in 1960, Nixon’s edge over Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Jimmy Carter’s edge over Gerald Ford in 1976, and, of course, Al Gore’s edge over George Bush in 2000.

It’s certainly not a popular vote landslide, but it’s a comfortable enough margin for the president to claim a rather decisive victory—particularly when combined with an electoral college tally of at least 303 (Florida still isn’t finished counting, though it appears that Obama will win Florida’s 29 electoral votes because he had an edge of 45,000 votes as of this morning, with most of the still uncounted votes in Democratic-leaning areas). If he gets Florida too, Obama would have 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206, which is more than most prediction models expected for the president.

The fact that Obama received over 50 percent of the popular vote is especially significant. Combined with the 52.87 percent of the popular vote that Obama got in 2008, this year’s total of 50.3 percent means that Obama is just the second Democratic president in more than a century to win re-election with more than 50 percent of the vote in both of his elections. (Franklin Roosevelt was the other one who did it, winning over 50 percent four times.)

Clinton got less than 50 percent of the vote in both of his elections, as did Woodrow Wilson in both of his.

It is an astounding accomplishment for the nation’s first black president—especially in a time when most observers feel the nation’s political landscape is more divided than it’s ever been. What pushed Obama to this historic achievement was the support of people of color—African Americans and Latinos who turned out in enormous waves for the 44th president.

I guess one doesn't have a mandate unless its a White mandate.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Freudian slip, or typo?
Either way, hi-larious.

At my age, it's hard to keep it up with so many beavers.

Or is it, "hard to keep up"

Well, you figure it out, you're the shrink.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You couldn't -- or, more accurately, wouldn't -- do it back when there was at least the theoretical threat of no-second-term. You put him back now, without even that hope-of-a-lever.

"Otherwise"??

The subjunctive implied by 'otherwise' requires at least some sort of conceivably-plausible counterfactual. The word you're looking for in it's place, if you're not happy omitting that first one altogether is "therefore". In any case, self-deception is a thing distasteful and to be avoided.

----
-edit-
On the gripping hand, 'totally screwed' as a consequence of one's ruler, while a thing that happens in reality, is not a rational descriptor in this case.

Obviously from someone so out of touch that they can't tell the difference between nuclear war with Iran and occassional drone strikes.

What do you have to do to get a ticket to magic pony land, blow your frontal lobes off?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Sorry, you seem to have some horseshit in your eye.

Let's go to Websters -

With that definition it would be exceedingly hard to argue that the US federal govt is an empire over its own states or people, let alone anyone outside our borders.

On the other hand, hegemony, according to Webster -

I think Justin Beaver currently is the hegemon over a lot of pre-teen girls, but fortunately that is usually short-lived before another hegemon comes along (sorry, Eric).

Sigh. If you keep reading past the line you like, you'll see that the word has many definitions, many synonyms, and even adjective forms!

Hegemony also has many definitions, synonyms, and adjective forms. Something you'll notice if you actually study the language, is that imperial is also an adjective form for both empire and hegemon.

But how can this be!? In PW's world, the two are distinct and utterly separate. But they aren't. In a proper taxonomy of political structures, "Empire" would be the category heading and "Hegemony" would be a sub-category, or specific case, underneath it.

Saying we cannot be an empire but we might be a hegemon is like finding a new species and concluding it cannot be a mammal but it might be a type of cat.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Correct. But he made two huge Senate mistakes--both of them favoring Republicans. He had no idea that the Democrats could win in Montana and North Dakota and that appears to be exactly what they have done.

That said, I was desperately hoping that Obama would win so that things would not get much much worse. Today I'm depressed because they obviously are NOT going to get much much better and we will continue to live in the era defined by George W. Bush, grey champion.

In a way, this may work out alright. We are almost guaranteed another two years of deadlock, Obama has to know that now, and the fiscal cliff is approaching. How would you handle this?

Personally, I would talk about the good we can do, and all the things that need doing. I would encourage the Dems to start legislation in the Senate (although this may be challenged as a House perogative). Then I would wait for Jauary 1st. Assuming the GOP isn't totally brain dead, they will see the cliff. They may prefer to play chicken, so let them. When we plunge off the cliff, it should be well documented that the Dems did what they could to prevent it, but the GOP was unwilling to help in any way. At that point, the offer should come: taxes set to pre-Clinton levels above $250,000 joint or $200,000 single filer, and kill the special rates for capital gains, carried interest and dividends. Add some other things or say all the rest is negotiable ... but really mean it this time.

Then, let the panderers try to justify dealing-for-dollars on millionaire tax cuts.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You know, you've been saying this crap for years now; ever wonder that you might actually be wrong or is questioning your own belief system just too traumatic for you?

Before you blow a gasket, maybe you should go outside and yell at the kids to get off the lawn or something. Yeessh.

Lawns are for dogs to run around and kids to play on. The Democrat supporter next door is the one who tells/yells at kids to stay off her lawn. The kids tend to gather and spend the bulk of their time playing on mine. BTW, it's probably wise not to approach me as if I don't know who the Democrat supporter are, where they live and what they do or do not do for a living. My wife friend works in the education system and her husband is a union electrician. Surprise, they both vote Democrat. My friend is a union fitter and his wife is a social worker who works for the state. Surprise, they both vote Democrat. My friend works for UPS (privately owned company with its own union) and his wife who happens to be Mexican runs a licensed home daycare. Surprise, they both vote Republican. My friend owns a business and his wife works as his bean counter. Surprise, they both vote Republican. A customer of mine works at home and lives on grants and her hubby finacially rides on her coattails. Surprise, they both vote Democrat. My wife is a Democrats kid (daughter of a union president/worker) and she took her poltical ques from her dad and voted the same as her dad until she married me and aquired a deeper grasp. She works with welfare recipients or for welfare recipients and her job is dependant on government funds. She should actually be voting Democrat but she knows that her hubby (the Republican supporter) can make more money than she does and all her Democrat voting friends make in month in one week.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Lawns are for dogs to run around and kids to play on. The Democrat supporter next door is the one who tells/yells at kids to stay off her lawn. The kids tend to gather and spend the bulk of their time playing on mine. BTW, it's probably wise not to approach me as if I don't know who the Democrat supporter are, where they live and what they do or do not do for a living. My wife friend works in the education system and her husband is a union electrician. Surprise, they both vote Democrat. My friend is a union fitter and his wife is a social worker who works for the state. Surprise, they both vote Democrat. My friend works for UPS (privately owned company with its own union) and his wife who happens to be Mexican runs a licensed home daycare. Surprise, they both vote Republican. My friend owns a business and his wife works as his bean counter. Surprise, they both vote Republican. A customer of mine works at home and lives on grants and her hubby finacially rides on her coattails. Surprise, they both vote Democrat. My wife is a Democrats kid (daughter of a union president/worker) and she took her poltical ques from her dad and voted the same as her dad until she married me and aquired a deeper grasp. She works with welfare recipients or for welfare recipients and her job is dependant on government funds. She should actually be voting Democrat but she knows that her hubby (the Republican supporter) can make more money than she does and all her Democrat voting friends make in month in one week.

That's what it all comes down to you folks - money.

Like I said, I thank God nightly he didn't make me like you.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Sigh. If you keep reading past the line you like, you'll see that the word has many definitions, many synonyms, and even adjective forms!

Hegemony also has many definitions, synonyms, and adjective forms. Something you'll notice if you actually study the language, is that imperial is also an adjective form for both empire and hegemon.

But how can this be!? In PW's world, the two are distinct and utterly separate. But they aren't. In a proper taxonomy of political structures, "Empire" would be the category heading and "Hegemony" would be a sub-category, or specific case, underneath it.

Saying we cannot be an empire but we might be a hegemon is like finding a new species and concluding it cannot be a mammal but it might be a type of cat.

"Hegemony" is a subset of "Empire"??? You can't have hegemony without empire??? Just don't tell Justin Bieber!

Okay, we can end this discussion right here. This is a lot like defining "inflation" as "increased money supply." You either live in magic pony land and believe this horseshit or you don't. I choose the latter.

Krugman points out something that is now obvious in the stock market today -

Wall Street’s Bad Investment Decision

There are many lists now circulating of the biggest winners and losers from the election; oddly, however, none of the lists I’ve seen mentions just how bad this result is for Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe.

The story, as you may recall, is that the financial industry — having brought both itself and the rest of the world to the edge of disaster — was bailed out by taxpayers. Yet far from being grateful, top financial types were furious at Obama for occasionally hinting that some of them might have misbehaved a bit. And investment bankers — who normally lean Democratic — went overwhelmingly to the other side, pouring cash into Mitt Romney’s coffers in the no doubt correct expectation that a Romney administration would dismantle financial reform and treat their wealth with the adulation they believe to be their birthright.

But Romney lost and Obama won. The limits of their power have been cruelly exposed, and the reelected president now owes them nothing. Did I mention that Elizabeth Warren is going to the Senate — a Senate that will be substantially more progressive and less Wall Street friendly than before?

Bad move, guys.

Live by your excessvie donations, die by your excessive donations.

Their tears make me smile.

.

Originally Posted by playwrite

"Hegemony" is a subset of "Empire"??? You can't have hegemony without empire??? Just don't tell Justin Bieber!

Okay, we can end this discussion right here. This is a lot like defining "inflation" as "increased money supply." You either live in magic pony land and believe this horseshit or you don't. I choose the latter.

Now you're adding the sub-sub-category of cultural hegemony in to the mix, which is barely even tangential to the original topic at hand.

Gah, increases in money supply might cause one type of inflation. It is a subset of.. oh god, nevermind. You're right. About everything. Always.