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

stupidicus

Profile Information

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

Journal Archives

that's been obvious for a very long time

the "both sides do it/are equally guilty" false equivalence has been a pet peeve of mine for a decade or more now.

Imo, this became inarguable after what happened to Durbin over his "Gulag" comment http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/06/16/496/87846 as a memer of the troop-hating, terrorist-loving party so many rightwingers shamelessly talked about at the time

It has long disgusted me

The best example of this failure can be found if one compares and contrasts the diff between the dem and repub conventioon efforts in 2004. Dem highborows -- including BHO as the keynote speaker -- too the high road and left Bush pretty much unscathed, while the lowbrow repubs wagged their purple fingers when they weren't poking them in the eye of Kerry and the dem party.

I've long taken the "take no prisoners" approach to dealing with lying rightwingers and their minions in their service, and have recieved a lot of attempted grief from lefties that think being tolerant of their endless dishonesty is the best path, based on some notion that as far as I can tell, that their complete abandonment of the 9th commandment says nothing about their character or that of the efforts a lack of it indicate they are in pursuit of. Oh, and of course, the demands of tolerance trump the incivility of calling lying dumbasses, lying dumbasses.

Rightwingnuts lie so profusely because they know they can't win the debates honestly, and the reason why they can't win them honestly is because while DC politics may be center/right, it's a myth that we are a center/right nation.

This is why I've long been convinced BHO's victory is inevitable -- the growing widespread fear of rightwingnutttery that the Mutt's chronic and endless lying in defense of their policies, only contributes to.

I also see high potential for retaining the senate and retaking the house as a result as well.

I have to disagree

it wasn't missed, it's just been ignored or excused with the introduction largely of BS making Martin the provocateur in effort to blunt that particular point.

As one who spends a lot of time reading and disputing the BS from the "man in the street" rightwingnuts on other boards and the garbage they post from their puppetmasters, I can attest to the fact that their efforts on this one follows the customary pattern -- introducing dishonest BS, dodging the facts as it falls apart, and almost always a retreat to mindless denials when they run outta turds to polish.

That's why I've long called them triple-Ders...lol

Totally unsurprising

As with all such efforts from the state, it's part of a "an ounce of prevention..." strategy, and in this case, not much diff in principle and practice from the latest strip search decision rendered by the SCOTUS his DOJ promoted and supported.

It's all about (intimidation) discouraging people from embracing and participating in efforts to pull back the curtain like Toto, and preserving the illusion of Oz (BHO's wouldbe wonderland)http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/w/wizard_of_oz/merry_old_land_of_oz.html , because we "can't handle the truth!".

That's why the state is so stingy with "liberty", but so generous with the dispensing of "death" and less punitive measures.

We've all seen how they handle mostly imaginary existential threats to our physical national security, so seeing them react this way to an existential threat to the NS apparatus is justifiably to be considered outrageous, but it should also be equally unsurprising.

And in this case in particular, it dovetails quite nicely with his efforts to sweep our collective shame and his duty and responsibility to bring the torturers to justice, under the proverbial rug.

It is imo, merely a repeating of history with different actors.


WILLIAM SAFIRE
The New York Times; Section A; Page 25; Column 5
September 9, 1993, Thursday, Late Edition - Final

George Bush privately assured Bill Clinton that he would not criticize the new President during the first year of his term. I cannot attribute that to any source, but trust me. And Mr. Bush has kept his word.

In what may be an unspoken quid pro quo, the Clinton Administration has moved to quash any revelations about Bush's Iraqgate scandal. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-09-10/news/1993253209_1_iraqgate-bush-justice-rome

which as is commonly known, he did for the lingering Iran-Contra investigations as well.

the sad part is, despite all the water-carrying for repubs Clinton did -- like in those cases, failing to soil/tarnish the repub brand with the obvious positive political ramifications for dems -- and as is the preception about BHO for many, it'll serve as no bar to them impeaching him should the opportunity arise.

The relative silence of Clinton during the lead up to and after "Shock and Awe", as well as his subsequently becoming Bush Sr's adopted son, has always made clear to this observer that he knew that Junior would never have sold his wmd lies, butfor his.

The only diff here is that BC had skeletons in his NS closet, whereas BHO may be just starting to fill his, and discouraging their public disclosure. And just imagine how discouraging the strip searching will be to the OWSers jailed for civil disobedience if it becomes the standard practice like these prosecutions apparently are.

This is why I keep asking myself, "when and over what is the lesser of two evils too evil to support?", compelling one to fall silent in the voting booth, like one should during a good cop/bad cop interrogation when all doubt is removed as to their lack of interest in justice, and seeing only their self-interests stemming from who and what they are. That is the question I struggle with over Nov, in voting for the one I was reluctant to the first time around. I'm guessing like many, the fear of the bad cop will overcome my reluctance, and for the same reason it always has -- imminent SCOTUS appointments -- not satisfaction with the one that will appoint them.

That's why the OWS is behind neither party, ain't it, because we can no longer afford to distinguish in a major way between the bad guys and their enablers, regardless of their "good intentions" the road to hell is paved by? It's kinda like asking a black guy to distinguish between the KKK guy, and his so-called "white friend" that fails to denounce them as they're selling their wares to them, because he/she thinks the redemptive power of love isn't wasted on a dedicated hater. And in this case, it isn't the right to be a racist cons are protecting, but rather retaining the political power of their monied master that keep us all on the plantation in the corporate state, as they export their hegemony to the rest of the world.

Survival of the Empire can extract a very heavy toll, but at least we can expect some scraps from the good cop BHO to keep the illusion of OZ alive, until Toto comes long and reveals the "Big lie"...

Sadly, all too often Toto isn't found or seen in the present where action can and should be demanded and taken -- Tolkin anyone? http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 -- but rather in the history books well after the damage has been done, and this prosecution will result in many kicking the can down the yellow brick road to ruin in the present. LBJ did a lot of good too, with Medicare, the CRA, the VRA, etc, but does that compensate for the grief he caused outside our borders and within with his VN choice?

I hope I live long anough to not have to make the lesser of two evils choice in the voting booth. As a former whistleblower in the work place, this kinda stuff is particularly galling to me, and for the same reason -- the survival of the offending company and my job was less important than the justice issues. ANd this kinda stuff won't in any way, lessen the use of that "apologist" charge the rightwingnuts love to lie about and direct at BHO, just as they've given him no thanks or credit for providing their own a shroud of protection this enlarges.


like with others, that thing about

"First they came..." comes to mind.

and where exactly does the definition of fascism require that the bodies start piling up as soon it effectively becomes the form of government underwhich we are all living in this country?

What you appear to be arguing for, is something analogous to since the boy cried wolf, and there weren't any immediately threatening anyone physically in the vicinity, that wolves no longer pose a threat even though they are still individually acting the part, and in search of the same kinda meal -- in this case, political power cake with greed icing. All those justifiably fearful of and alarmed about wolves should silenced, lest one endure the annoyance of an inarguable false alarm you can't demonstrate, here, or haven't anyway with that cookie cutter stuff.

Under the definition of fascism from Mussolini, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/20/us-constitution-and-civil-liberties-us-supreme-court

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

and since we've already witnessed the marriage between the state and corporations, where's the problem with calling the proverbial spade the spade? I will of course entertain arguments that this isn't presently the case in alarming measures, and that it's unreasonable to see it as the threat it is. Aristocracy, oligarchy, plutarchy, fascism, they are all cousins, given the common element of the political power being wielded by the few. And given the long history now of the rightwing minions voting against their own self-interests in this country, their authoritarian/patriarchal-leanings, as well as their obviously disproportionate holding of various bigotries and inclinations to otherize others, all we really need to see is a few more million muslims to die before they match the Nazi record and earn the comparisons.

The similarity/parallels between this and the arguments the flat earthers have been making for years now, are quite striking. After all, the climate has changed before, so it must do so in much the same way and for the same reasons this time too, having nothing to do with what we've been doing. Surely you didn't expect us all to play the ostrich role, did you? They object to the use of the flat earther label too, despite how well they fit the description.

The fact of the matter as far as I can tell, the fascists tailor their suits to suit the environment in which they are in while selling their wares and ways. SO your blueprint is useless as a means of showing a misuse of the term. It's really little more than representitve of your preference it not be used, because you think it does a disservice to those who died under more brutal and repressive forms of it in the past, who didn't have the history to conjure up "First they came..." lines to serve as warnings. When I read rightwingers applauding the hundred or more deaths by torture of "the others", and calling for glass parking lots in this muslim country and that, it's people like you I think of, and your certainty that it "can't happen here". They are ripe for the picking/prodding further into the darkside, and 9/11 was used as a major cultivating tool. And after all, it was Martin's fault he got shot, and more recently, the little girl got pepper sprayed. Methinks you need need to suit up and take a deep plunge into the darkness of the modern rightwingnut mind to gain some understanding and appreciation of, how many baby steps remain before it can "happen here".

Movements identified by scholars as fascist hold a variety of views, and what qualifies as fascism is often a hotly contested subject. The first movement to self-identify as Fascist was the National Fascist Party of Benito Mussolini. Strains which emerged after the original fascism, but are often placed under the wider usage of the term, self-identified their parties with different names. Major examples include Falangism, Integralism, Iron Guard, and Nazism.[336]

Republicanism in this country may well be added to this list down the road in the history books, in other countries anyway.

Just wait until the south of this continent becomes unbearably hot, crops fail and the water sources dry up, and require "socialistic" solutions. Gee, whatta kinda measures do you think will be required to quell the predictable social unrest, and who'll be living comfortably? I'd say those in the boardrooms and halls of power, who'll do anything necessary to retain their mountain of cash they can ski down for fun, just as they are now. "Just watch this drive!" http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/Jayne_Hitler-Bush.htm

We could be just a Romney presidency away from them coming outta the woodwork en masse, like the racist and islamophobic cousins have since 9/11. Personally I think they did in the Bush years, and didn't need Doc Britts effort http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html to say so.

Of course they won't call themselves fascsits, for reasons similar to but not to be confused with your objections to its use -- the negative CONnotations.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15