HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » stupidicus » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Jim
Gender: Male
Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:33 PM
Number of posts: 2,570

Journal Archives

As they should have

key to it is this

But most of the insults I get related to politics come because I don’t support individual candidates with either my reporting or my opinion writing, and because I feel really quite free to criticize even the ones who come the closest to my own personal politics as our democratic process allows. In that, Glenn Greenwald and I have something in common.

Goodness — and Greenwald — knows I’m hardly in agreement with every position he’s taken, but I will absolutely defend his right to take those positions without being subject to the kind of stupid, reductionist criticism we on the left all decried during the Bush years.

in other words, many lefties act like the Bushbots they use to criticise if not condemn for that kinda behavior. ANd it's not just the dehumanizing, etc rhetoric across the political/ideological divide that's at issue here, it's the intra-ideological stuff, because GG is a lefty as far as I can tell. They wanna give him the same treatment the rightwingnuts have their dissenters like Frum, Bartlett, and now, likely Jeb Bush as well. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" for me, but not for thee, is the manure they are spreading.

It's what underlies all the "be quiet, you're endangering BHO"s reelection chances!" BS, like the many criticisms of him of this kind aren't common knowledge, and to criticize him is gonna unduly influence the ignorant or something.

It isn't the criticisms or the criticizers that that are responsible for the divisions of the election-threatening kind they whine about, but rather the things criticized and the treatment the criticizers get from the Obamabots for choosing to air the grievances as opposed to pretending he isn't occasionally naked. They make it "either support everything he does or else" thing, or expect the treatment the likes of GG and other vociferous critics have recieved.

So protest votes (meaning not voting, as opposed to going with the MUtt) can and likely will arise not just due to the lack of support for everything BHO has done or because some of them are unacceptable, but also because the "enemy-like" status on a personal level, the Obamabots attempt to make one feel like.

They are imo, short-sighted knuckleheads, just like the Bushbots that came before them. That's why I have no use for them, not because we have disagreements about BHO's policy pursuits, etc. They'd better hope that the anger they inject into others with this kinda garbage isn't taken out on BHO in Nov, because that would be their participating in realizing a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

what balderdash

the unsupported nature of it notwithstanding, it's nothing more than a worthless criticism of the criticisms you obviously can't undermine in any meaningfull way, leaving them legitimate and intact. Speaking only for myself, I've thought since he was elected that his reelection was assured, unless the repubs nominated someone who could restore some sanity to the party. That however, has played no role in my criticisms of him, only the legitimacy of the criticisms and the principled stand they represent. You appear to be asking those with principles to abandon them, which is not just unreasonable and unrealistic,

It's also nothing more than an example perhaps, of why this rule, http://www.americablog.com/2011/09/why-is-it-that-so-many-critics-of-obama.html also applies to the lefty political warriors found on places like this.

And responsibility for the criticisms and their outcome is his

Obama supporters would answer that question by arguing that now is not the time to criticize the president because the alternative--electing a Republican--would be worse. Now is the time to mute criticism, because criticism can be embarrassing and dispiriting. Buck up, Dems, forget issues and actual performance, now is the time for cheerleaders, not critics. We can reconvene on the issues after Obama gets re-elected.


which is eactly what this kinda stuff is all about http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/06/08/liberals-threaten-not-to-vote-in-november-over-disappointment-with-obama/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/obamas-2008-donors-dont-give-in-2012 all of which is something he should be criticized for, including the result in the latter link, should it jeapordize his reelection chances.

and what's most insulting about it, is that should a loss occur and be reasonably attributable to a "lack of enthusiasm", that it will be predominantly because of those who noticed the "emperor had no clothes on", not the condition he's had a big hand in creating. Second to that, is the idea that one can't criticize BHO with the intent of continued support, like they are mutually exclusive concepts, because anyone that criticizes BHO over this and that haven't a big enough brain to hold both of those things in their undersized or deluded brain.

I've long thought and argued elsewhere since the stimulus, that while the lack of enthusiasm is real and justified over it, and compounded over this and that since -- which is revealed and justified by the way the criticisms survive scrutiny -- the fear of rightwingnutttery will more than compensate for it this Nov.

If some choose to not vote for BHO because of their disappointments, it's highly doubtful it will be because of the work of those criticizing him, but rather to be attributed to knowledge and opinions they've acquired on their own.

This kinda talk reminds me of the path Bushbots took, that indeed resulted in his reelection (the potential theft of it in Ohio notwithstanding) but left them collectively in the current shameless condition of dishonesty and denial they are currently in.

Of course we need to "unite", but that doesn't mean an end to the demands of a better second term and policies those criticisms represent. The idea that dems voters are just mindless and impressionable nincompoops who'll be unduly influenced by others rather than the incontrovertible facts they are fully aware of, is preposturous. I'd like to see BHO reelected too, but not at the price of condemning those who voted their conscience and because of the undeniable disappointments. This isn't a case of "perfection being the enemy of the good" but rather for many, between repub-lite, (the Greenwald/Jones/etc pov) and the real thing. That's why I say, most will go with the former, not the latter, and in part because many are awakening to the fact that that's what they've done before.

and it's his presidency that has raised that awareness, because of the diff between what many thought they were voting for, and what they got to this point.

and besides, as I recall, and will confirm if needed, that BHO himself has made it clear http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=obama%20said%20he%20%22welcomes%20criticism%22&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CFIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard.php%3Faz%3Dshow_mesg%26forum%3D102%26topic_id%3D4946549%26mesg_id%3D4947268&ei=G1bWT62cFcTo6gGVrbyRAw&usg=AFQjCNG7EtbbGwRCgmzV57Y4UGlkpE2Ipg that your pov is all wet.

which is exactly what most of his critics of the non-rightwingnut kind are doing
As for his previous complaints about Obama, “It’s my job, whoever the president is, to hold his feet to the fire,” he said. “And I will continue to do that. There are lots of issues I have with the president—mostly on national security. I would rather he have Ron Paul’s foreign policy and brought troops home and cut the defense budget and all that stuff, but part of it is I do think he has gotten better… I really think he’s getting his mojo back.”

just because we don't have the million clams doesn't change a damn thing, but by all means, send Bill a letter and tell him to shut up, no?

Of course private sector job creation is alright Mutt

if you compare it to what your plans of being "Bush on steroids" will result in, or indeed, the econ policies you agree wholly with now that got you to thinking of bulking up with tax cuts, deregulation, etc, steroids. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/08/1089785/-Private-sector-jobs-grew-far-more-under-Democratic-than-Republican-presidents-1961-2012 http://www.businessinsider.com/number-of-jobs-created-per-month-by-george-bush-2012-5

Could it be better? Of course it could, and particularly if you'd have backed BHO up in his efforts to stimulate the economy as you argued for here (minus the "page not found" thingy -- I wonder if they scrubbed it) http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romney-called-for-government-spending-in-a-st particularly since it contained your precious tax cuts.

I can't wait to see BHO tie him up in knots with these issues in the debates. If I were BHO, I'd be asking him specifically how he coulda made the stimulus package better, other than in size -- the biggest flaw.


I've been making that case for the better part of the last decade on the "internets" to my lefty brethren, every since they started in with the "you hate the troops, love the terrorists" and related lines of BS in defense of their Fuhrer. I've long thought and argued that "civility" is way overrated, and is actually counterproductive, given the enabling aspects of it. It's analogous to "being nice" to racists, homophobes, etc -- the silent enabling it represents does nothing to discourage their undesirable conduct and rhetoric, and actually reinforces it, because they pay no price for it.

The sad part is, a large majority of them would befriend and tolerate their intolerance, incivility, etc, in their many and varied forms, and then turn around and give me an attitude for having one and being unwilling to tolerate them. I'm tolerant of just about everything but intolerance.

The rationale for this enabling conduct has always been reduced to "but they are fellow americans with different povs, who love their family and friends, and little puppies, and kittens too!" Well, the same could be said about the nazis. This is why I was so pleased to read about how the fight in WI resulted in divorces and splits of various sort between family and friends, as I experienced back in the VN War days. Accompanying that rationale, was of course the "it's just politics as usual", like the various "Let them die/eat dirt", racism, homophobia, warmongering, torturing, the threats from global warming, etc, are just trifling ideological diffs, as opposed to the stains upon our collective soul that they are.

What I've been most curious to see the result of currently, is the "blame game" that appears to have been launched regarding the willful undermining of our economy and republic by the dems against the repubs. Now, if the dem leadership truly believes this to be the case, which would be tantamount to a connotative case for "treason", shouldn't their rhetoric and descriptive term use reflect that?

Of course it should.

Great post, and I wish I could see more of them, because I came to believe a long time ago that civility poses an existential threat to this republic. It's done nothing but enable and embolden the fascists, and discouraged those like you and I.

What you're talking about here is this http://www.prosebeforehos.com/image-of-the-day/08/24/huxley-vs-orwell-infinite-distraction-or-government-oppression/

While many are familiar with Orwell, the reality is the powers that be have placed as many if not more eggs in the Huxley basket.

The greatest republican ever on the WI recall

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Abraham Lincoln

As a long time union supporter, the current state of them in this country saddens me, for reasons I need not explain to those of like mind. I am however, greatly encouraged by the battle being waged in WI over it -- win or lose – because it puts it back into the national dialogue where it belongs.

As such, I’ve long thought and argued that the need and desirability for them needs to be reframed, and the current economic chaos and the uncertainty it has introduced into the daily lives of union and non-union workers alike. In what now is clearly an "employers market" with competition for jobs being very high, and with no shortage of replacements, individual job security is more shall we say, "insecure". I would start with the use of the rightwinger “right to work” line of BS, which in a very real way, is what belonging to a union is all about.

Most of the time when the subject is discussed, it is under the frame of the betterment of worker conditions such as pay, benefits, safety, etc, when the reality is it is first and foremost and ending of that evil known as the “at-will” doctrine that basically gives all the cards to the “boss”. While all those things that flow from the ability to bargain collectively are great, imo they take a back seat to the “right to work” period, as in freedom from the whims and retaliations from the boss. Sure, there are laws against various form of discrimination, like those found in the law and protected by the EEOC, and various “public policy exceptions to the at-will doctrine” to be found, e.g. http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19730501_0030003.IN.htm/qx but none of those will protect you if say, you have a BHO bumper sticker on your car while working for rightwingnut tyrant. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=fired%20for%20a%20kerry%20sticker&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Farticles%2Fnews_and_politics%2Fchatterbox%2F2004%2F09%2Fbumper_sticker_insubordination.html&ei=GhnOT5npD6a22gXL4YytDA&usg=AFQjCNFhzi51X99SnsGiH82o3uFIAt2qvw

I’ve always thought that unionism ought to be seen as job insurance to secure that “right to work” free and unfettered by the would be tyrants, because only by securing this high ground first can the rest of the bennies be acquired. Furthermore, all workers gladly pay insurance for their health, car, house, etc, yet somehow paying meager union dues to insure that you’re not a victim of the boss and the loss of the job that provides the revenues that pays for all the rest of the insurance they need, is one of the finest but least talked about examples of “voting against one’s self interest”.

And of course, there are societal benefits to be derived from this as well, if you wanna remain focused on the lifting all boats angle as opposed to the aforementioned dedicated self-interest. http://unionreview.com/germany-discovers-boosting-unions-reduces-unemployment The reason why I think the self-interest angle needs to receive more attention it never adequately has, is because people are more responsive to it due to our “what’s in it for me” nature.

After all, isn’t it the individuals “right to work” without having to join an objectionable and wholly unpalatable “socialist/Marxist/etc” org the string the rightwingnuts pluck? I have no real objections to their “right to work laws”, based on the same “freedom to associate” right the existence of unions rests upon, other than the duty of the union to have defend them at their expense as “free-riders’.

Imagine that – rightwingers supporting freeloaders…

In the context of labor unions, a free rider is an employee who pays no union dues or agency shop fees, but nonetheless receives the same benefits of union representation as dues-payers. Under U.S. law, unions owe a duty of fair representation to all workers that they represent, regardless of whether they pay dues. Free riding has been a point of legal and political contention for decades.[1] In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula (also referred to as automatic check-off) is a workplace situation in which the payment of trade union dues is mandatory, regardless of the worker's opinion about the union.

actually it's a product of the new normal

much like the center mark on the ideological dividing line has moved rightward, making "moderates/centrist" of kooks on that side of it, the definition of insanity has correspondingly been redefined to accomodate the new and acceptable "normal".

Historically speaking, the causes are easy enough to discern, and I'd say most of the movement in this direction began with the DLC/corporate-friendly pres Bill Clinton. During his admin was when the good cop/bad cop, faux duopoly curtain highly favoring the rightwingnuts was wove, followed up by the machinations of the Lee Atwater disciple Karl Rove. Thank dog for Monica, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich or the privitization of SS for example, would have been on the table in the public square before Bush tried to put it there. This no doubt explains however, the "insanity" of the palatibility of putting it on the chopping block now, despite its non-existent role in the budget problems sacrificing it is intende to cure.

I'd say "insanity" is an inappropriate characterization, given that what we're seeing is really the product of many baby steps resulting from cold calculation the truly insane are incapable of, unless the term is being applied solely to those who would vote again for the "updated" Bush/Rove policies that are not only obviously against their self-interests, but also adhere to that now famous definition of insanity -- "doing the same thing...".

While I agree with some of the other posters here regarding the role "timidity" on the part of the dems has played in all of this, I'd part company with them if that timidity is seen as the product of fear as opposed to largely being the complicity that it is in the furtherance of the good cop/bad cop game the girls and boys in DC are playing. "Impeachment is off the table" they said, despite the then and now rightwingnut friend BC being the victim of such for far lesser crimes against this country, much less humanity, or that thing called integrity the lack of which has grossly undermined the faith in government rightwingnuts exploit, and quite energetically as exemplified in the case at bar here. It not only fires up their base, but also undermines the faith and confidence those on the left have in their leaders to pursue their interests.

That's what the OWS is all about -- a brewing and growing fight against the tag teaming that's being done against us all for the monied interests. So while "insanity" may be an appropriate characterization/description of the current political condition, the responsibility for it cannot be laid at the feet of the rightwingnuts in its entirety, and the days of ignoring the role of the enablers on the so-called "left" in DC these days who exploit the only choice we have "left", even if their guilt doesn't extend beyond their guilt of ignoring the maxim "all evil needs to triumph is for good men...."

This is why I get so frustrated and disgusted with with "lefties" that are intolerant of legitimate criticisms of their leaders, like that wasn't the same dynamic that gave Bush four extra years, and the road to hell isn't paved by good intentions that intolerance is, despite being grosssly wrong and misguided.

Rightwingers are so predictable

Offensive offense is the only defense they have for everything, including and especially after literally being found with their pants down. This almost always includes but is not limited to, charging the opposition with what they are the most if not exclusively guilty of.

We've all seen countless examples of it. The most recent biggy that comes to mind is the way BHO/dems are waging "class warfare".

Quite frankly, the first thing that came to mind when I read about this case, was that their main idea and effort behind the resurrection of Wright was to help alleviate the fear and potential/likely loathing many in their rank ranks have over the Mutt and his Mormonism. What better way to alleviate that burden in significant part than to keep the dialogue focused on some scary black guy instead? That would keep his Mormonism outta sight of the mindless, or in the alternative, present a rather stark "lesser of two evils" choice And for many of them, that would be a no-brainer http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/03/mormon_church_and_racism_a_new_controversy_about_old_teachings_.html based on a "most like me" standard.

RNC Chairman Says Republican Proposal For $10 Million Of Race-Baiting Anti-Obama Attack Ads Is Obama’s Fault
By Josh Israel posted from ThinkProgress Election on May 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus
In an interview on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley this morning, host Crowley asked RNC Chairman Reince Priebus about a widely-denounced proposal for a pro-Mitt Romney outside group to run millions of dollars in race-baiting attack ads highlighting controversial statement’s by President Obama’s former pastor.

Rather than denounce the proposal or the dangers of having a small group of rich outside donors and corporations free to spend as much as they want to influence elections, Priebus blamed Obama.


no he's not

he's going to one his choices built.

As a father who won custody of his child 25 years ago in a state where such was by far the exception, I never saw a dime of the 15 dollars a week ordered, or my state notifying the state in which she's dwelt since as is required by law -- so I have my own "injustice" issues to whine about. And to make things even worse, after he reached the age of majority I sued and got a judgement based on that figure with the help of the state, under the Fed Title IV as I recall (which all this stuff falls under), only to have the state subsequently close the case and collection efforts contrary to the law as well, since that can only be done by either them collecting it, or my signing off on it. Of course these "closings" are what underlie the awarding of more "block grants" from feds to the state, so it is really a fraud being perpetrated in cases like this, which I'd love to pursue as a Qui Tam action, but haven't for reasons I won't bore you with here.

So for those here calling it a "racket", I wholeheartedly agree.

Having said that, of course the burden the court imposed on my ex is in no way comparable to that imposed upon him, but as a parent, his first duty and responsibility is to his children. Granting they were apparently not wanting of anything, assuming his stuff about his ex and her good fortune of finding a provider are true, that in no way eliminates his responsibility any more than my ability to provide for my son without the assistance of my ex eliminated hers.

Furthermore, given that he likely had at some point in time, legal counsel that informed him of the ramifications of his actions -- or inaction in this case -- the whole thing it would seem, rests upon whether he was making what the court would see as a good faith effort to follow its edicts. Without having the court record at our disposal to weigh and judge the facts in the matter, this isn't a matter of a "he said/she said" thing between him and his wife, but rather between him and the state/court.

As much as I'm inclined to as a victim of state/court chicanery (albeit of a different kind -- no punishment for my deadbeat ex) to offer sympathy and empathy for his plight, I'm also as a victim of a deadbeat parent who knows intimately the BS they spew in defense of themselves while excluding any sense of duty or responsibility to the child, inclined to say say in the absence of a full airing and therefore knowledge of all the facts, that it is totally legitimate for those who think it stinks under a "smell test" here, to call his big emotional appeal stinky.

As a result of all of this, imo you and the rest here that are basing your stuff and outrage based solely on his "version" of facts in the matter are on no better footing to defend it than those who're promoting the opposing "deadbeat dad getting what he deserves" pov, and it's hardly worth the measure of interpersonal conflict and discord I see resulting from what is in the final analysis, a "We really don't KNOW" situation.

But by all means, have at it. Reading the fights is much more entertaining than "dittos"..lol

High cohesion and borg-like unity is common in a cult, so that isn't something they do well

they have no choice, kinda like the fish swimming, water being wet, or us breathing.

It's the means by which they collectively escape the shame that the individual units are constantly warding off by the same means, through the miracle of ego preservation by way of denial.

After all, if you collectively had such a spectacularly successful record at failure -- what they do "the best" -- your "choices" are extremely limited, and confined to either owning up to them, or doing what we see them do daily anymore, which is lie, scapegoat, deflect, project, etc. We see this done by their high priests you witnessed, all the way down to the lowliest and most stupid rightwingnut trolls.

I've read a great deal of late about "The republican brain" and the various efforts to explain the underlying causes for the obnoxious outward behavior you're describing here, and to me the loathing and disgust they make apparent with efforts like this is key to understanding that it is avoidance of self-disgust and loathing behind a great deal if not most of it. This is why so much of that which they direct at BHO and liberals/lefties generally is totally fabricated, and often something they are the most if not exclusively guilty of -- because they know they can't win by honest means, or by putting their record into a debate on the merits, given it is one of countless and gross failures, as well as full of violations of the xtian ethics they only pay lip service to as largely weekend warriors. Their complete abandonment of the 9th Commandment as seen in their granting license for decades now, to their pols and pundits to lie without fear of any financial or political reprisal, represents irrefutable testimony to and substantiation of the charge that they think that liars occupy the moral high ground.

I never had any trouble providing the facts and reasons for my loathing and disgust for say, the unindicted war criminal and burning Bush, but as we see daily, they have to fuel their loathing and disgust with BS. I suppose if I was stupid enough to have voted for a Bush twice, I'd be seeking validation of and vindication for it in the manner they do to. That's the reason why their loathing and disgust with BHO is way outta proportion with facts to support it -- their fresh memories of the many and varied failures they wholly supported and championed with Bush, that the historical record now shows to have been failures and stupid in the extreme, except to their monied masters that profited from it.

They and their minions as I've long argued it, are similar to and often easily confused with, their ideological cousins the Nazis, in terms of the dynamics here. The only difference is, rather than being guilty of something of the type and on the scale of the Holocaust, their "Big Lie" techniques have only resulted in the death and displacement of millions of Iraqis abroad, and the perpetuation and increasing of human misery here at home for the "others". This is why I started arguing a decade or more now, that the twin towers were almost immediately replaced with the dark twin towers of apathy and ignorance that have only steadily grown since.

This is also why some of their worst critics like Frum, Stockman, Shaeffer, etc -- those who broke away from the cult -- relish their work so, because it provides a sorta penance for their sins as former participants in the cult, and works as a kinda ego and soul salve for what they have accepted as their guilt.

The simple fact of the matter is, unless and until their minions crash into the wall of reality in sufficeint enough numbers -- like the German people seeing photos of the death camps -- they are gonna continue doubling down on the apathy and ignorance, and all the various dishonest means they have to maintain the political status quo. I think a great deal of their more recent madness and escalations in this regard, is due to the awareness on the part of their masters, that issues like jobs, health care, and the looming crisis of global warming, are gonna require "socialistic" solutions, and the looming brown demographic wave threatens their hold on political power, and will see to it that ideas about social justice are pursued and enforced.

The con rats are titanic failures http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/05/33-quotes/ , and are merely trying to secure as big a life raft as they can before their ship goes down. It's never been the failure of BHO or lefties they've feared and loathed, but rather their successes, because they always have the undesirable side effect of whittling away at both their money pile and the political power they wield with it. That kinda governing is never a problem.

And all their lying, etc, is merely how the selfish, self-centered, greedy and power hungry, keep themselves, and more importantly their needed minions, keep themselves convinced they are the "moral" ones. "Morality and politics are inseparable" said St. Raygun, and morality in turn, is what spawns the loathing and disgust behind all of their "divider", etc BS.

It's the wrong time to be on the right, because I'm convinced that their time is short, and events are gonna widen the self-created hole in their "good" ship Lolli-Flop, because they have no solutions to the many aforementioned problems that plague us of largely their creation.

good post by the way

It only goes to show you all the "good work" done by that "in the tank for BHO/liberal media" no?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »