HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JackRiddler » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 72 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 22,740

Journal Archives


Unfortunately he's almost as radical as Truman on questions of war, participating in the general consensus. He's promising he will be as bad as Obama, though certainly not as bad as bomb-Iran Clinton or onward to the neocon and apocalypse-seeking variants of the Republicans. In any case, that's what he says. I didn't lend credence to all those who claimed Obama was just faking out the right and secretly going to be more progressive, blah blah. It's more possible with Sanders, but not in this context, in this particularly regressive atmosphere of seeing deadly enemies everywhere, all the time, and total valorization of the militarism and nationalist bullshit. Such a consensus has bought into this idea that the threat is constant and has to be proactively attacked (which is the formula for creating the threat in the first place). I guess you can't challenge Wall Street and the imperialist war-profiteering systems in the same election? Probably not. Just some thoughts.

Beautiful OP by the way.

Sure, I understand that.

You're saying this is a good thing? To rescue the criminal entities who pulled off these epic scams on millions of people, and destroyed the economy for billions of people? Not only to save the banksters and hedge-fund pirates but to help them get richer, bigger, more powerful? So that they can buy elections on even more enormous scales? (We must save Godzilla, he's too big too fail!)

And to do this on the basis of the Fed getting to set its own policy independently and in secret? Inflating the asset side (nice market, hooray!) so as to float the finance sector's fantasy football games and do zilch for real economy? Let the wealth continue being sucked upwards? Pretend to reach no-fault "settlements" that are basically the government getting a small cut of the action?

The law has provisions for liquidating insolvent corporations and for prosecuting fraud, which on the scale that was practiced is a crime that destroyed millions of people's lives. Serial killers and mass shooters don't get to do that. Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein and Sir Stephen Green get to do that. 2007-09 demanded that the stables be cleaned out of the mountains of horseshit and toxic waste. Instead, one message was delivered: Crime pays. Keep at it, banksters!

Imagine if you reduced and mangled history to a false talking point.

Malcolm and Martin, closer than we ever thought

The civil rights movement prevailed until 1965 because tens of thousands of people were willing to violate unjust laws and put their bodies on the line against extremist violence, even as many liberals were urging them to be more pragmatic! "Pragmatism" doesn't get to steal that.

As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, “What about Vietnam?” They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.


God should not be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Pledge of Allegiance should be taken out, period. No such thing should be required to recite in schools. Especially not a pledge to a piece of cloth, which anyone can wave and claim for themselves. That kind of shit belongs in totalitarian systems.

Schools should educate about democracy generally and in particular the form of government in the United States (democratic or not). Students should be learning the Constitution from Preamble to Bill of Rights, the history of the amendments and major court decisions, their rights and privileges and duties and requirements as citizens generally, the means for organizing to protect their rights, how to get involved in and influene the politics that affects their lives (not only inside the voting booth), why it's important...



Writing for the SC majority in 1943, when Jehovah's Witnesses refused to say the pledge, Justice Robert Jackson:

“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Clinton blesses Bloomberg as a back-up if she loses to Sanders.

Tell me that's an unfair reading!

Despite a tightening race, Hillary Clinton said Sunday she's confident she'll secure the Democratic nomination, dismissing speculation that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is seeking an independent bid for the White House.

"He's a good friend of mine," Clinton said. "The way I read what he said is if I didn't get the nomination, he might consider it. Well, I'm going to relieve him of that and get the nomination so he doesn't have to."

With only 8 days until the Iowa caucuses, Clinton said she feels "great" about her ground game in the state, which is working to ensure enthusiasm is "not just here today, gone tomorrow."


"Sanders can't win in November" having been toppled, Clinton and the Democratic establishment are now switching to "Vote for Clinton because otherwise we will have the means to make sure Sanders won't win in November."

Bloomberg is not a good friend of mine! You?


As a response to some of the first comments in defense, I want to see people ask themselves what she should have said. Here is what I wrote below (#13).

There is only one (politically) acceptable response to the question.

At least, if she's still part of her party first and a candidate second. (Ha ha.)

And that would have been that Bloomberg can do what he wants but that he is not a good candidate for president. And of course (even if he's a "friend") in the "impossible" situation that I, Clinton, should lose, then certainly I will support the Democratic candidate against all comers.

Anything else implies a public countenancing of this particular oligarch's ambitions (assuming Clinton's fail, of course). A good friend! Who cares! To the other 300 million people, he is a politician like her, so the question she should be answering is whether she supports his politics. Does she? Well duh!!!


Headline change to "blesses," since people are hung up on some formal meaning of "endorses" and prefer to miss the open sharing of Bloomberg's concerns about Sanders as legitimate (which DWS did in an even more open fashion soon after, post 163). This statement amounts to her saying, "No worries Bloomberg, I got this."

Yes, the Denver defense will be good.

A lot better than what Arizona can offer against the Carolina juggernaut. Hey, they stopped Brady! It will probably be a closer game than what we're watching right this moment, but it's very unlikely the Denver defense can make up for the awesome difference between the offenses.

Good luck being sober in this milieu!

What did David Brock say today? How communist atheist is Sanders anyway? Clinton speaks to Goldman Sachs for charity! Vote for her or you are sexist, racist and stupid! Why do you hate Obama? You're supporting Trump!

Q. Will you release your Goldman Sachs transcripts? HRC: Ha ha ha!

Hillary Clinton Laughs When Asked if She Will Release Transcripts of Her Goldman Sachs Speeches
Lee Fang
Jan. 23 2016, 9:37 a.m.

After Hillary Clinton spoke at a town hall in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Friday, I asked her if she would release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. She laughed and turned away.

Clinton has recently been on the defensive about the speaking fees she and her husband have collected. Those fees total over $125 million since 2001.

Her rival Democratic presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, has raised concerns in particular over the $675,000 she made from Goldman Sachs, an investment bank that has regularly used its influence with government officials to win favorable policies.

Watch the video:


The laugh sounds performative, not involuntary. Some serious hubris going on. Is it a case of "those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad?" Or just arrogant as all hell?

Bill: “People like me and Hillary can afford to go to college. The government can’t help everyone."


Without mentioning Mr. Sanders by name, Mr. Clinton dismissed one of his main campaign pledges, to provide free college tuition for all. “She does not agree that tuition should be free for everybody,” he said of his wife. “People like me and Hillary can afford to go to college. The government can’t help everyone. We should have money to put into jobs and infrastructure.”

If you can't afford it: tough shit!


Good thing we don't get to peek into the real lives of Homer, Shakespeare, the cave painters of Lascaux and the rest, including all the unknown authors of traditionals and drinking songs. Or we'd have to line up a lot of the works attributed to them against the wall! And forget about the modern philosophers, really the whole imperial lot, even Marx.

It's a fundamental of art that it tends to take on its own autonomous existence, and that the recipient (re)makes the work every time. Especially if it's largely persona-independent, or, as in this case, has nothing to do with the acts of the man. Songs especially are birds that fly on their own. It's a song that a couple of hundred million people have played and sung without almost ever thinking that Don McLean wrote it. It's about the death of Buddy Holly.

And I told you, his behavior isn't even personal, it's abhorrent and should be punished (assuming the truth of it is determined in a court of law). Of course, by your standard of exclusion - not just of physical abusers, an always serious and inexcusable matter, but also "hypocrites" and "liars" and "etc." - pretty much no one will be left to listen to.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 72 Next »