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 Next »

stupidicus

Profile Information

Name: Jim
Gender: Male
Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:33 PM
Number of posts: 1,142

Journal Archives

That's long been the case, and the "normal"

the only thing that's changing is the methods and means by which they "get it done".

Now it's just wouldbe tyranny by a Pee Party minority that's being used to put restraints on what is "politically possible" and to explain the Neville Chamberlin-like behavior on the part of dems. It's no longer just a good cop/bad cop situation, but rather a good cop/very, very bad cop one. As one who thought from the beginning that the whole point of the Pee Party formation was to drag the already off center ideological dividing line in DC farther to the right, I'm unsurprised by their tactics, but nonetheless alarmed by the success they've enjoyed so far.

WHat I don't get, is if the dems are so assured that the brown demographic tsunami is inevitably gonna drown the rightwingnut rats, and the country will come to love the first hostage Obamacare as they currently do SS, Medicare/Medicaid, why it is they aren't in more of the bully role. Being the adults in the room does nothing about the millions that will remain uninsured despite Obamacare, the jobs/stagnant wages/wealth inequality problems, or the need for more action on the biggest and most important issue of this or any other time, AGW. Like JC with the moneychangers, they need to adjust their conduct in a way that's appropriate for the problem to be solved, which are many.

The only win outta this mess is whatever negative impact it will have on the 2014 results in the house for repubs. Should they lose it, then the "politically possible" will once again be restrained by the tyranny of the minority in the senate, assuming that 60 vote requirement thing remains intact -- another thing nothing can be done about, or should I say has been done about, despite the high costs to us little people they allegedly represent.

Repugs no longer believe in democracy as this CR battle has shown, and far too many dems in DC are either oblivious to that or impotent in the face of the danger it poses to our republic and we little people in it. That makes them part of the problem whether they share the goal of rule by corporatism/fascism or not.

good post

I completely agree

I guess it depends on what you think has been "won". By not giving up more than they did to the extortionists?

As I see it, giving them the little baubble they got is likely to encourage as opposed to discouraging them from simply continuing to rinse and repeat with this kinda conduct, while leaving the dems who bail them out in the house responsible for whatever concessions they extract. According to rightwingnuts, the Bush tax cuts are now the BHO/dem tax cuts, as are all the impact they have on our debt and deficits. http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22294868/fiscal-cliff-bill-extends-most-bush-tax-cuts The "politically possible" is and has been for some time now, a euphemism for giving us dogs a bone, or a "win" in this case.

This tyranny of the Pee Party minority tactic is gonna be energetically exploited at every available opportunity by them, leaving the inexorable rightward drift on socioeconomic policy issues/legislation alive and well. I don't think any ego considerations need be made in terms of their being declared the losers, because it appears as if this conduct is hardwired into them now that they know such methods and means are the only way they can politically accomplish their goals.

The only thing we "won" is a respite from their madness until the next game in an undefined/unknown number for the series is started.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/10/white-house-there-are-no-winners-here-175216.html

Even BHO knows there aren't any "winners" in all of this, but there has been many losers, as you rightly noted. http://wonkwire.rollcall.com/2013/10/16/chart-day-26/


The only real "win" I see has nothing to do with the specifics of the CR situation other than as an unintended result for rightwingners -- the potential for losses in 2014 their madness has enhanced the possibilities for. But that assumes that the dems will then try to blaze a trail leftward. For some reason I'm not very confident that they'll do so, given the way that "politically possible" thingy keeps getting in the way...

I find them all to be rather amusing weaklings

differing from the rightwingnuts ONLY on several socioeconomic issues, but as we know, that's the pile of bones they feed we cur with to maintain the illusion of big diffs and the essential fear of rightwingnuttery that keeps the propaganda machine (the illusion) well oiled. They plead their case using much the same dishonest and easily rebuttable tactics you noted, and to a point where common ground is lost, as well as a sense of being welcomed on that which still exists.

That's why I told all of them that I've interacted with in the last year or more around here, that if anyone is dividing the "party" and endangering election/reelection chances, it is them. Being treated like second class supporters, etc, as they so avidly attempt around here, could be the proverbial last straw for many, given the way it personalizes it. They would make it a "the party booted me out" situation on top of the "the party left me" situation many of us are already struggling with.

Quite frankly what I find most amusing is that many of them don't seem to be aware of the fact that they are in a minority here, and as I've argued it for some time now, in the real world as well.

all I see is someone supporting a "credible threat" being used

that included a claim to being able to take it outside of the "threat" category and make it real without the support of the electorate, their reps in congress, or the UN.

Given that all that was the starting point for all the complaints from us anti-war folks, the aftermath of it notwithstanding, it seems to me that all those "singing the praises" for "credible threats" of that kind really need to step up and give their stamp of approval on the illegal warmaking that "credible threat" represented.

How long have you supported http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CFUQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftv.msnbc.com%2F2013%2F09%2F03%2Fun-suggests-american-attack-on-syria-would-be-illegal%2F&ei=qQg1UrrqCoTOrQGf1oGwDw&usg=AFQjCNFswdL2gnoCAnhxLtbfj5b2mLwYqg&bvm=bv.52164340,d.aWM such things?

smartypants appears to follow the "the ends justify the means" rationale, which is very common with rightwingnuts.

And their support for illegal warmaking seems pretty apparent based on the "my concerns were more about the efficacy..." remark.

Tell the smartpanted "moran" BHO had UN support for his actions in Libya, and that he had the horse behind the cart this time.

None of this BS undermines a damn thing anybody posted in disagreement with his "credible threat" when it was issued.

what I'd like to know, is how all those celebrating the result of the "credible threat"

are anything but war supporters, particularly given that the "credible threat" was warring in violation of the UN Charter if need be.

I can understand how one might find good results from the poisoned tree/undesirable means and methods acceptable even while deploring the poisoned fruit nature of that result, but I don't see how you can be approving of the method and means -- the "credible threat" of warring in this case -- without supporting that threatened, if for no other reason than it may inevitably have to graduate from credibility school into the real world as a fact.

Indeed

you can't support a "credible threat" and then be opposed to carrying it out, can you?

I'm guessing the most preferred enemy to attack for most of them would be Iran.

lol

it has it's origin here

I chose it better than a decade now when joining "The Fray" which Slate through the WP hosted, and largely to give the cons/repubs I battled an easy out when they ran outta ammo. The number of lefties here that have sought to make hay outta it has been a bit amusing as well.

You know it woo. "Creepy" is a good way of describing it. I'd say what we're looking at and battling here is due to the absence of the common enemy in the WH, and the lack of focus on that, as well as the actions and inaction of the current occupant, has given rise to the awareness that the "D" he has doesn't necessarily make him our preferred/ideal kinda friend. Those of us feeling a sense of unease/being "creeped" out is totally understandable and expected under the circumstances, because near unanimity has been replaced with much discord, and quite the schism as a result. I'd say there's a real correlation between how "creeped out" one is about the current political conditions and issues, and the level of awareness and understanding one has of them.

To be quite honest and frank with you, while I find all the demands for tribalism and the rhetorical products, suspension of reason and logic, etc, of it pretty "creepy" given the remarkable similarlity it has to the Bushbotism I battled for so long, I find great encouragement in the number of those around here who don't seem to be afflicted by it, and who are prisoners of their long held or newly discovered principles instead. While battling those cons/repubs for so long, I was also making the case to my fellow lefties that the enemy of our enemy wasn't necessarily our real friend, so what this board has been embroiled in -- the battle for the heart and soul of the left, and who gets to determine what we stand for -- is not something new to me, nor are the dynamics of it all.

I'm inclined to think that he's unintentionally performed a great service for those of us on the left, insomuch as he's shown on several issues, and raised awareness as a result, as to how little separation their truly is between what I've long characterized as the faux duopoly in DC. They no longer compete as much as they try to sell the same product under a different brand name. The dems these days and for quite some time, have been the party that dispenses the occasional bone seasoned heavily with the fear of our only alternative, while the rightwingnuts have increasingly provided ample reasons for that fear.

That imo, is the truth and realization many around here seek to avoid with their strident defense of all things BHO.

sorry for the rant. As an armchair social psychologist I thought maybe it would be nice to provide an encouraging prognosis for the creepy pathogen our many mosquitos are spreading around here.

what we have here is a failure to communicate

Not.

I can only speak for myself of course, but when I objected to BHO putting chained cpi on the table, the criticism wasn't based on any speculative achievement of that goal, but rather how damning it is to propose it to begin with.

When I opposed his efforts of the sabre-rattling kind in Syria because of an inability to see how military strikes there would comply with the dictates of a "just war", the UN Charter, etc, it wasn't because I thought military strikes inevitable, but rather the fact that he was proposing doing something damning.

There simply is no "there, there" in terms of being right or wrong as far as predictions go because the alleged "bluffs" have yet to be called, much less where a "rubbing of the nose in it" is concerned. Just because we may never see him sign chained cpi into law, or attack Syria without a sanctioning of this congress, the UNSC, or the approval of a majority of the American people, says nothing about the level of willingness he's expressed for doing both in defiance of them. He is either willing to break the law or has been bluffing about military strikes, no? Since his more avid supporters will no doubt fail to concede that he was willing to make himself a criminal under international law (which apparently isn't objectionable given the "bizness" those who've objected on those grounds have recieved) it would appear that bluffer with a big stick is the preferred description.

That's why we see all of the "you're a racist"/"some like to see him fail"/assad protectors, etc, etc, etc stuff, because they completely lack a viable argument that undermines objections based on principle alone, like adhering to the "rule of law", or that is convincing and compelling enough to sell their "bluffing" BS to the risk averse. And how does one know when the bluffer is bluffing? When they stumble over a red line?

It's almost like objecting to the proposal of such things is the crime, as opposed to the crime (in the denotative and connotative sense they respectively are, syria/chained cpi that is) they would be if realized.

The "failure to communicate" isn't the product of misunderstandings, etc, it's the product of one side having no reasonable objections to reasonable objections and criticisms of the "Bluffer in Chief", even if they include incontrovertible things like http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-03/world/41712097_1_chemical-weapons-president-bashar-assad-s-security-council to object to.

Obviously all that rhetoric about a "war of choice" that no doubt figured so prominently during the Bush years, and "dumb wars" that helped get BHO elected, was just meaningless rhetoric intended to bluff them into ignoring the following sage advice from another great communicator

“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”


We can in large measure thank the shrub for the reason why this war wasn't sold, here and abroad. Apparently most of this country and the world are BHO-haters and assad-lovers/protectors, for having doubts, war weariness, or a problem with warring period, and the rest are followers of the Bush Doctrine.

Democratic regime changeIn a series of speeches in late 2001 and 2002, Bush expanded on his view of American foreign policy and global intervention, declaring that the United States should actively support democratic governments around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism, and that the United States had the right to act unilaterally in its own security interests, without the approval of international bodies such as the United Nations.3] This represented a departure from the Cold War policies of deterrence and containment under the Truman Doctrine and post–Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.

Maybe you're a warmonger if you approve of sabre-rattling "diplomacy".

Maybe you also reject the spirit and letter of the UN Charter as a warmonger as well.

US, Israeli threats of force against Iran are illegal and harm chances for a deal
Even if we set aside the ethical and political implications of America's threatening Iran in the course of negotiations, there are two major legal issues with these threats. First, the 'threat of force' is illegal under international law. And second, any agreement reached by threat is invalid.

The term “threat” refers to a government's announcement of an act of violence for the purpose of intimidating another government into changing its policies. Under the Charter, only the Security Council is qualified to make such threats. Every other threat of force is unlawful.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0307/US-Israeli-threats-of-force-against-Iran-are-illegal-and-harm-chances-for-a-deal

Maybe you think that when a black pres does it, it ain't illegal. Rightwingers use to reject all that when Bush was sabre-rattling over Iran as well. Does that maybe make you kissing cousins with them?

Maybe you'll approve of the next rightwingnut pres taking such matter into his own hands. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fdefcon-hill%2Foperations%2F321103-white-house-insists-it-may-strike-syria-without-congressional-approval&ei=-1svUsmWI4LlrAGSu4GIBg&usg=AFQjCNFBXlUBrxdE80vUrDtfZuH6pagNCQ&bvm=bv.51773540,d.aWM What's the diff after all, between ignoring the rule of law and the the will of the people that want to see it observed, and just making up your own rules as you go along?

Maybe you unwittingly or knowingly love the fruit of the poisoned tree, and like the common rightwinger, adhere strictly to "the ends justify the means" rationale in defense of your tribal chief.

This is of course not to say that a positive outcome in the Syria case should be rejected, just the means by which it was harvested should not be forgotten, and indeed, avoided.

Does this make me a racist? The reason I ask is because that seems to have become one of the fav goto non-arguments those not too smart rely on in situations like this.

I'm sure happy that we're not talking about a dumb war in Syria

in pursuit of all sorts of nefarious ulterior motives/goals, should it escalate into something we can all agree satisfies the definition of "war".

I'm also glad that having a AUMF in hand this time will trump/negate the fact that without a UNSC resolution authorizing it, that it will be a war of aggression. After arguing that not so fine point to rightwingers for years and years in rebuttal to their "it's legal" stuff, it's very pleasing to see that the problem has been taken care of for our democrat pres. I think this has something to do with putting "limited" before this and that for a wary public that has grown weary of the super-sized war sandwiches.

It's also good to see that this war won't have been staged by dem and repub admins alike for a decade or two before awe strikes again. I think there's little to no doubt in this smart war, that the villian does indeed have chemical wmds, unlike all that uncertainty that must have existed while BC was perpetuating those illegal no-fly zones started by Bush Sr in Iraq, and avidly maintaining those costly sanctions on Iraq, and for Bush the Lesser, as the investigations into the Iraq wmd programs made clear.

I think I am most pleased to see the great spirit of bipartisanship descending once again upon DC, despite it being expected because foreign policy is the temple in which they find the most common ground for shared worship. Sometimes I'm even silly enough to think that preserving this church of the empire is the main reason that the good cop/bad cop, faux duopoly, janus-like condition so many of us imagine to exist in DC, has the "give the dogs a bone" quality to it, even as they slowly open the curtain with the chained cpi rope. I find great solace in sharing my bigotry of low expectations with so many, in a misery loves company sorta way.

And after all, dumb wars are only for dummies, no?


What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »