An excerpt at 1.13.57:
[…] What worries me is precisely the simple fact that we talk publicly about [torture]. I mean I know very well, I am the first to admit when pro-American friends tell me […] “let’s be frank In the United States we at least debate torture. In China, in Russia they are probably doing it much more, they don’t even talk about it.” Ok we debate it. This worries me. Why? Let me draw a parallel. […]
Would you like to live in a society where you will have to debate and argue all the time that women shouldn’t be raped?
No I want to live in a dogmatic society where when somebody starts to advocate the right of men to rape women you simply disqualify your self, I mean people don’t even attack you, you are just a jerk, […] “haha, what’s wrong with this guy” or whatever.
Fortunately I want to live in a society where the same goes for torture.
I think the sign is that we debate about, they are many signs that this unwritten between the lines rules are changing. That’s why I think we effectively are in a middle of change. Its not maybe the change that Obama wants, it is a much more ominous change. It’s a change of this very ideological background.
This is why, If you want to get what the message is […] you should all the time apply this mechanism that “OK they are saying this, but what is the implicit message? They say I believe this. What is that they really want us to believe?“
I think things are really clear, when Republicans are saying “not Obama, we are for change, we are the true candidate for change”. It’s a little bit I am afraid too short to claim “Oh but they don’t really mean change.”
Of course They don’t. […] The real message is “we promise you to change something, to change that what is necessary to change so things remain the same“. I mean this is the message between the line, it is all too naïve but its too clear.
When you ask about the economy, they say what? The same old mantra: “less state, less state spending, less tax, strong foreign policy”, absolutely nothing new, so its change so that nothing really changes.
Another thing, when people claim about all this populist rhetoric, of you know “we mavericks, simple people” of course Republicans are now playing the populist game, but what are the true contours of these games?
Again, I don’t think the real message which is well understood by their voters is “things are really that simple, we will just put in practice in Washington your populist fury […]”
No, the message is: “we and you know very well that we need boys in the back room, experts to do the job. Let’s play the game here we will keep a boy in the back room who will do the dirty job for you, and it’s better for you not to know it.”
I think that effectively between the lines they are offering you what is the opposite.[…]
(h/t to P U L S E)