HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » stupidicus » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Jim
Gender: Male
Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:33 PM
Number of posts: 951

Journal Archives

Say it ain't so!! Safety net cuts still in play?

How could that be?

I thought the table had been yanked from underneath such propositions that had never ever existed to begin with.

President Barack Obama urged Congress Tuesday to replace the automatic spending cuts of the budget sequester with a balanced set of deficit reductions that included cuts and revenue. He also indicated that, as far as he's concerned, a "grand bargain" is still possible.

The proposals that I put forward during the fiscal cliff negotiations in discussions with Speaker Boehner and others are still very much on the table. I just want to repeat: The deals that I put forward, the balanced approach of spending cuts and entitlement reform and tax reform that I put forward are still on the table.

Who cares if some don't have a prob with drones/kill lists/assassinations?

it's not like they can overcome the many problems with their use as legal/moral matters. As "good and loyal dems" they'll come up with all sorts of reasons and rationales why the boat shouldn't be rocked, but hey, oftentimes the line between pragmatism and principle leaves the one crossing that rubicon giving nothing but lip service to principles to which they can't return as champions of. It's kinda like the way the modern rightwingnut as "good xtians" forgot all those lessons the JC guy preached about the poor and whatnot. Their "goodness" thereby comes into question, although their loyalty to whatever causes them to ignore such can't be questioned. WHile the reasons/motives for approval and defense vary, in my experience they were largely absent and silence predominated the lefty ranks throughout the Bush admin, where criticisms/condemnations were frequently seen. I'll leave it to the reader to conclude in their own minds then, what the most likely common denominator is, which in my mind has little to do with the legal/moral aspects of what is going on, but rather isolates it to who is "pulling the trigger" so to speak, or the aforementioned would have been the case.

Top Five Objections to the White House’s Drone Killing Memo

All they can do at worst is malign in a concerted way (like say, was done over the pre-election concerns expressed over the social safety nets, etc) those who dare to object as a matter of principle and practice. To me, after a decade of battling rightwingnut pants/bedwetters over the many issues associated with the phony war on terror, I can't say that I am shocked. As a lefty and a member of small minority of Americans

In January 2002, 6% of respondents called the war "a mistake."

that "objected" to the war in Afghanistan and the AUMF from which most of this garbage flows, I do however find the lack of lessons learned by many on the left a bit startling, even though more appear to be waking up, if not to the error of going into begin with, certainly the futility of our long stay there. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57404807-503544/poll-support-for-war-in-afghanistan-hits-all-time-low/. But hey, that's what happens when you expect edible fruit from a poisoned tree that AUMF represented. The "sit down and shutup" about the drones/assassination stuff that will come from some isn't a defense of it, it's a tacit concession on their part that they have no defense of it, and really just an example of their guilt of gobbling up that poisoned fruit, and feeling fat and sassy as a result. The only "win" they might "legally" get will no doubt differ little than the one we saw in the case of Afghanistan -- the "good" but illegal war under international law that polled highly here like with drone strikes -- and Iraq, from a lack of prosecution. It will be interesting to see if they'll support such things should they achieve a "war crime" designation. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/un-drone-inquiry/ For many of us the kill list has just made it more of a family affair so to speak, that speaks to the general lawlessness with which this phony war on terror has been pursued.

Why it's almost like those defenders of the CONtinuing erosions under our "dem" pres would be up in arms if this idea ever achieved fruition. http://my.firedoglake.com/davidswanson/2011/09/06/congresswoman-lee-introduces-bill-to-repeal-aumf/ which is really nothing new to those of us in the anti-war crowd http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dave_lin_061121_congress_should_imme.htm It does raise the question though as to whether support for such an effort completely undermines the support for what is going on now, leaving the current supporters of it in a bit of a quandary or having a need to explain how if "everything is all right now" such a move is needed or desirable.

This whole affair kinda reminds me of the other BS so many swallowed whole due to mezmerization by the Big "D" in the past, and which of course similarly, they'd like to think had no role in the mass murder and mayhem that subsequently followed when the "bad cop" took the helm.


I've been asking rightwingnuts what Krugman did not long ago -- "How many times do people like me have to be right..." -- for a very long time now on these matters, and I'm afraid, as no doubt all those who share my pov on the matter of those working so hard to crystallize this thing into the "new normal" for their pres, that the "I told you so's" in the making will provide little solace when and if another "bad cop with an (R)" wakes them from their stupor.

So, while it's easy to care about the issue of the slippery slope soaked with blood laced with the shattered remains of our constitution, and the ideological composition of those promoting/supporting the lubejob, I have no concerns whatsoever about who will win this case on the moral if not legal merits.

And it's good to see rightwingnuts http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/droning-on-about-the-drones/ and some on the left finding common ground on an issue and the rhetoric, method and means by which they champion this issue, even if their motives may differ.

After all, foreign policy is where DC finds and sees most of its bipartisanship, which is obscured by the "give the dogs a bone" stuff like social safety nets, etc issues on the domestic front. In the interest of gaining or preserving on those fronts -- bread and butter" issues -- it's no small wonder why some are willing to overlook and/or take exception to criticism/condemnations stemming largely from the same rationale so many rightwingers used to justify Bush's BS, like "only those who have something to hide need fear his felonious warrantless wiretapping -- they think they never need to fear being the victim. And of course on torture, the same rationale -- that some must be tortured to find that plot where thousands are to be killed -- is being employed on the kill list issue, only with greater finality.

“Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

is but one example of the case, the principle, and rhetoric used to express in this instance, that predates the constitution. By all means drones/kill list/assassination of US citizen supporters, take a stab at showing the flaw in it. It seems to me like like it represents something very similar to the rationales/moral underpinnings of the reason why torture was rejected, no? Hell, even the justifications I've read over the killing of innocent women and children by drones reeks of the same BS I read from many rightwingnuts as a justification for the Iraq War -- "They should have deposed him!" -- like who you are married to or sired by comes with choices easily exploitable, like keeping your distance from them.

ANd torture is just transient suffering physically, as opposed to a "final" solution imposed on those who haven't been shown in a manner the constitution dictates, to be a problem warranting that solution.

Would it be a stretch to say we aren't just killing people, but the constitution also in the process, as well as our moral standing as was the case with torture use?

The world thinks so. http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/061312_drone_poll/poll-most-non-americans-oppose-us-drone-attacks/

We're "exceptional", ain't we?

The only silver lining as I see it with these issues, is that the rightwingnuts are hypocritically NOT praising BHO for keeping their pants/bedwetting behinds safe from those who hate us "for our freedoms". Sadly this issue -- on the kill list matter specifically anyway -- is all about some of those freedoms being taken away.

AWK AWK! SS is intact! The witch is still dead!

but the austerity wolf remains alive and well.

Let's hope our hero the axeman doesn't blink while swinging, lest he hit the wrong target.

That would ruin the end of this political fairy tale, no?

Hell, I'd be happy if he'd just quit his so-called bluffing about SS/chained-cpi being on the chopping block. There's not been a test of loyalty to a leader like that made since God tested Abraham, no?

It's a good thing he as I recall, was just funnin too.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel really really terrible about believing BHO's expressed willingness to put SS on the sacrifiicial altar. To do otherwise is almost like calling him a liar, ain't it? Hopefully this will be the last test of loyalty/fealty we'll have to suffer through if this great subterfuge spawned in the midst of gre4at "Nth" dimensional chess game, is successful, and the "good guys" win. Having been a chess player a good part of my adult life, I fully understand and appreciate the value of the sacrifice when playing wood-hungry fools, but that's also why so many of us are kibitzing in the wake of the offering of a major piece like SS, since a "liberal" chessmaster has never offered it formally before. Why, that kibitzing has made "lefty loons" outta us all I hear and read, but I have yet to read or hear exactly how the fears/concersn are either unreasonable or irrational thereby justifying the "loony" label.

I'd attribute that to the fact that those alleging it lack the political acumen to move beyond attacking the kibitzers as opposed to providing justification for a "liberal" president making such an offer. Comparing him to Lucy would seem to be a belittlement to not only him, but the stakes in the game he's playing.

3. Compromising the Compromising President

President Obama sensibly told Republicans that he would not sign any bill or agree to any deal that extended the Bush tax cuts on those making over $250,000. He had stumped on that across the country on this pledge and received a mandate from the voters. Polls showed the majority of Americans were with him. With all the Bush tax breaks due to expire, Republicans were faced with letting taxes go up on everyone just to defend tax breaks for the richest Americans. The President began the negotiations saying this was not negotiable. He could not have been in a stronger position.

But he chose to compromise. The Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire on couples making over $450,000. This costs about $150-200 billion in revenue over 10 years. The president argues he got the important extension of unemployment insurance and the working poor tax credits in return. But these could have been folded into a package after going over the cliff. And the cost to the president is significant. Once more Republicans have learned that obstruction works, that the president will always blink.

The next extortion – the debt ceiling, automatic sequester – in the next eight weeks makes this a big deal. The President says sensibly that he will not negotiate over lifting the debt ceiling. Period. And now there is even less reason for the Republicans to believe him than before. This encourages extreme demands rather than discouraging them. This was the time to draw the line.


Who says there's no such thing as a legitimate rape

at least in the figurative sense?

and especially if they are already on their backs...

'I've said it before, I'll say it again,' Obama said. 'We can't balance the budget on the backs of the very people http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/big-income-losses-for-those-near-retirement/ who have borne the brunt of this recession.


yep, I wrote this days ago now

but have yet to post it anywhere since I hadn't honed or edited it..

It's the elephant in the room as far as I am concerned, and a successful "trickle down" scheme. And if I were to add anything at this time, isn't it validated by our collective lack of remorse over the millions of dead and displaced Iraqis?

yep, something's rotten in America

and the last thing this country needs at this time is to have the rightwingnut kings of BS telling us exactly how rotten it is or why.

If I were to play social psychologist and try to identify some of the pathogens afflicting the host, I'd start with american exceptionalism that the gun/culture of violence flows from. It's kinda like the functional equivalent of the AIDS virus -- it doesn't and need not kill the host directly, but rather weakens it to the point were it's vulnerable to things that can. In the case at bar, we are indeed "exceptional" and exceptionally vulnerable to its virilence, resulting in the political impotence and will we are now seeking a remedy for in the wake of this evil.

America’s gun-related murder rate is the highest in the developed world, excluding Mexico, where the ongoing drug war pushes the murder stats way up. The question of what causes the U.S. firearm-related homicide rate is a complicated one involving many variables, but it certainly seems plausible, especially the day after a knife attack in China injured 22 children but killed none, that one of those variables would be access to firearms. And, in this regard, America is truly exceptional.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/

One could I suppose, make a case as to how it makes some individuals more directly susceptible to succumbing to the infection.

Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense. To them, the United States is like the biblical "shining city on a hill," and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.
The phrase fell into obscurity for half a century, until it was popularized by American newspapers in the 1980s to describe America's cultural and political uniqueness. The phrase became an issue of contention between presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign, with Republicans attacking Obama for allegedly not believing in it.
During the George W. Bush administration, the term was somewhat abstracted from its historical context. Proponents and opponents alike began using it to describe a phenomenon wherein certain political interests view the United States as being "above" or an "exception" to the law, specifically the Law of Nations.


I'd say given the history of our warmongering and imperialism, that was less an abstraction and more the shared pov as to what it means, and something embedded in most of us whether we understood it that way in the context of the description, or were even aware of the self-description or not.

"No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded."
-- Margaret Mead, anthropologist (1901-1978)

whether it be becoming famous or infamous. And given our collective historical lawlessness on the world stage -- of the goose denying the gander type -- well, that's just another absent barrier and pathway to a societal norm Margaret warned about. It's our collective use of violence as a problem/conflict solving tool worldwide and a trickling down of it that feeds the mindset of our "well trained militia" types who cling to the 2nd amendment practically above all else, because without that foreign enemy the constitutional justification imo anyway, evaporates. And the reality is, as long as we are collectively reliant upon indiscriminate violence as a means of conflict resolution or to make a collective statement justified by american exceptionalism, we are gonna be victims of our own collective making. What for example, is the diff between the madness of the gun nut demaning the right to own a gun they could kill hundreds with if they did their homework with, and us clinging to our nukes? And what exactly is the diff from the survivors perspective between the Newton tragedy, and this? http://www.juancole.com/2012/12/lets-also-remember-the-176-children-killed-by-us-drones.html Much like gun nuts here, our gov runs and hides in the impermeable shell of inconcievability that short circuits any consideration of -- much less concrete solutions -- the fact that it's the availabilty and use of the method and means (those inanimate objects that have no role in this) and the lack of sufficient restrictions on both that perpetuate the problem. And of course, this is all due to another thing we're exceptionally good at -- exploiting the profits to be had from the thing we say we're dedicated to stamping out worldwide -- violence.

Does this sound familiar?

How America is Filling up itself and the World With Guns
The University of Michigan “Correlates of War” project, run by my late colleague David Singer, tried to crunch numbers on potential causes of the wars of the past two centuries. Getting a statistically valid correlation for a cause was almost impossible. But there was one promising lead, as it was explained to me. When countries made large arms purchases, they seemed more likely to go to war in the aftermath. It may be that if you have invested in state of the art weapons, you want to use them before they become antiquated or before your enemies get them too.http://www.juancole.com/2012/12/how-america-is-filling-up-itself-and-the-world-with-guns.html

perhaps maybe that can be compared and contrasted to the "likelihoods" of being a victim to or perpetrator of gun violence in this country once you become an owner...

Of course all tribes like to adopt and sell a similar pov to their members -- in a less "abstracted" way of course, at least in practice -- but how many of them have so many that wanna cling to their guns and bibles like Linus does his blanket, and with so much of their self-identity and world views attached to both? While it certainly can't be said that all those who've used this as a vehicle to "make a statement" in this country did so for the foregoing reasons, they were likely certainly aware of how common it is in terms of usage in this country.

It's certainly a statement our country has made many, many times -- Might makes right, and death sells better and is more easily bought than peace as a solution.

Shameless socialist strenuously strove stridently

before the election, to counter-productively criticize Obama with wholly irrational and baseless charges regarding the social safety net programs, sowing much fear and apprehension in the process.


As we know, that kinda conduct could ONLY have evil motives, like to maliciously attempt to depress voter turnout for BHO by way of injecting divisiveness in the ranks of his supporters -- because some would naturally be silly enough to buy into it -- thereby dampening their enthusiasm.

Thank Dog he wasn't successful with his effort.

Should DU do a petition to send to him to cease and desist with this conduct, full of the ridicule and scorn we feel for his having knowingly and willingly at least tried to jeapordize BHO's reelection chances?

(sarcasm off)

If the dems lose the election, who will you blame?

If it comes from a lack of that intangible "enthusiasm", I'll blame all the BHO supporters who've spent the last the last many months insulting all those with concerns about what BHO intends to do with SS, over paperless voting machines, etc, which they've made to feel like traitors to the cause. What kinda "moran" would allow the discusssion of uncertainties between what is largely BHO supporters, to unduly influence them, and moreso than the "thy shall speak no evil" so to speak attitude this represents, the exaggerating to that it represents notwithstanding?

After all, if some potential or otherwise BHO voters can have their enthusiasm and desire to vote so severely undermined by bearing witness to the seeking of discussion and an honest exploration of the facts and perceptions over the aforementioned things, how will they react to the direct and indirect insults coming from those so irrationally fearful of any boat-rocking whatsoever? And this is particualrly true of those leaving the "Our way or the highway!" ways of rightwingnuttery, or those fence-sitters to which such things matter. They've merely discovered that the much vaunted/ballyhooed liberal "tolerance" is a sham.

I've long been convinced that the fear of rightwingnuttery in those disappointed in BHO, indies, and CONverts, far eclipses in importance and will influence their upcoming voting choice far more than anything such discussions could possibly provide in terms of changing that choice. Furthermore, there's absolutely nothing divisive about the expression of concerns, and even if there is, it pales in comparison to the divisiveness of the "sit down and shut up" nature all the whining about it represents. I'd ask why anyone would wanna vote with those who are nothing but dismissive of their concerns, and whose only real argument against them is to charge them with and for things the very act of charging them with it makes them guilty of, with the not so subtle distinction that they choose to insult with claims of divisiveness or not caring about an unshown and unproven dampening of enthusiasm that could result. In other words, those with concerns about this and that having nothing to do with convincing someone to vote Mutt, or to not vote for BHO, are being lectured by those similarly situated with nothing but "concerns", lecturing others in a variety of ways about how they and their concerns are unacceptable. Their guilt of such is nothing but a fabrication by those who have no interest in anything but, and have the mentality of a cheerleader. Where in the rules of the political game is it written that only positive reinforcement is allowed or required, and what does it say about those who think that others are so weak-minded and impressionable that they'd be influenced by it to the extent they sofar, have baselessly claimed. It's almost cult-like thinking, ain't it? I think they are intelligent people who won't be unduly influenced by the insults, dismissiveness, etc, than they will be by the exaggerated negative results/influence the cheerleading claim the expression of their concerns will have, which makes them the smarter of the two groups as well.

And gee, which is more harmful to our collective cause -- people who most likely intend to vote BHO regardless expressing honest concerns about this and that in an allegedly liberal and "tolerant" environment, or those intolerant of such telling them "politely" to sit down and shut up?

I think even a grade schooler could answer that question correctly more often than not.

yep, been writing about it forever it seems

the problem doesn't reside in the "rightwing brain" in terms of structure, but rather the flawed and inconsistent structure/construct of their immorality/amorality that results in such high levels of disgust for their ideological opposition. They live in denial of all the facts that undermine their povs on those matters and more, but most importantly, in denial of who and what they are all that defines them to be.

Deflections, projections, scapegoating, etc, are all denial tools that alleviate their burdens of conscience, and keeps their disgust flowing outward as opposed to inward where it belongs. Lying to themselves is necessary, and the mortar that keeps the wall of denial standing.

The dynamics of it all isn't that much different if at all, from what the German people collectively underwent decades ago.

One can only wonder for example, had it been some politically neutral figure rather than the despised Al Gore, that took the helm of the global warming awareness movement, what that debate would look like now, or the public opinion polls would show on the matter. Similarly, one could wonder what the modern "con" mind would look like, if they weren't on the wrong side of almost every political issue of significance past and present that has led to forward progress and less human misery. Much like the greatest lie the devil is said to have successfully propagated -- that he doesn't exist -- the modern con has to lie to the public and to themselves, to pretend that their sad and sordid record doesn't exist. Their record of failures and the immorality component of much of it, is transmuted by their mental alchemy into successes. This is why despite all the evidence that record represents, they still lay claim to the moral high ground and a monopoly on mensa membership. It's also why they have tolerance for chick-fil-a and muslim-bashing video makers, but no tolerance for those who object to them.

All of which is why I've long been disgusted with, and loathe and despise them. The difference is of course, mine can be justified because it doesn't have bigotry as the proximate cause -- unless intolerance for that kinda intolerance, or hating haters is "identical to on a moral scale, the kinda bigotry they embrace and gladly live with.

that's why I despise rightwingers of the Bushbot type generally

they spent years being wrong about almost everything --as well as historically -- much of which had a strong moral component to it, e.g. lost blood and treasure in Iraq, yet they still sit on their moral high horses polishing their equally unearned (but self-granted) mensa awards.

Their immorality/amorality are showcased in their lack of remorse over the blood needlessly shed, their attitudes towards the poor and disadvantaged they try to enshrine, etc, and their lack of foresight rivalling that of the common earthworm, as well as their inability to draw the correct conclusions from the same body of fats we all share, points directly to either their complete lack of critical reasoning skills, or their service for the evil their immorality/amorality spawns.

This is why I've struggled for the last ten years in detemining what is their most defining and shameless characteristic -- their willingness to claim the moral highground as ijmmoral/amoral pucks they are, or their willingness to claim the sharpest tools in the box award as those who've been historically and currently wrong about almost every issue of significance, ranging from the efficacy and benefits of SS, to that of the most important issue of this or any other time, AGW.

This is also why I've long thought civility is way overrated. There is no getting over, around, or under their mountain of denials, there's just going through it/running them over. While their complete abandonment of the 9th Commandment has pretty much eliminated whatever attitude/behavioral modification value shame use to have in this country, at least running them over provides us an outlet for our frustrations, and helps keep the emperor naked, whether they find that condition embarassing or not.

What you wrote about is in my estimation, the best evidence for the myth of a "liberal" media. It's not just that he still has a soapbox, but also that those that got most of it right, don't.

no doubt dude

that's why we on the left (not just dems) are like herding cats.

I had Catholic and conservative parents, and learned my own parentling skills from them by doing in most cases, the polar opposite.

The "authoritarian" aspect is what slays me almost the most about them. While it does benefit them greatly by supplying so much cohesion as they are buffeted by the winds of reality, it also keeps them far removed from it, kinda the way their endless lying keeps them together, while being an affront to their god, and being wrong about almost everything of significance keeps them together, but far removed from being "right". Shame and stupidity both like company just like what their sad (and disgsuting) plight should lead them to - misery.

I find the Maslovian heirarchy of needs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs interesting to, in terms of arguing and establishing which camp -- the faith-based/authoritarian or reality-based/independent -- shows the most potential for full maturity as defined by self-actualization of the individual, as well as a consistently applied moral construct without which much of the rest is artificial garbage maintained by the authoritarianism they are subjugated by. Given the rampant "otherization" their camp engages in, the quality of their morality is easily called into question by the excess of prejudice alone. They don't solve problems, they create and perpetuate them, including the content of this discussion. And as the faith-based camp, acceptance of facts is outta the question.

Their reliance on and fealty to authority, whether it be some religious figure "lying for the lord" (like Mutt is free to do as a Mormon http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord) or pols and pundits doing it for essentially the same "the ends justify the means" reason, is a problem because of who and what they rely upon as an authority imo, not that they bow to authority. Morality is the authority we all bow to, it's just that theirs is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and therefore worthless as such and not even worthy of such a designation for that matter.

I'm a lefty an a lifelong atheist, but I still understand and appreciate the wisdom and beneficial applications of the golden rule, and a great deal else some religions can teach us about the betterment of our societies and mankind generally. I am also a bit of a moral relativist, because our needs change with time and circumstances. I think that is where our "independence" comes in and distinguishes us from them and their slavery to authority-seeking men. We are slaves to the best ideas and solutions that relieve human suffering in all its many and varied forms -- the highest moral calling -- as opposed to them clinging to inflexible/immutable dogma that more often than not, stands in the way of that.

The disgust they muster and maintain for us is cultivated, grown, and supplied, only for the purpose of maintaining authority and the power that comes with it. I find it unsurprising that cons are more susceptible to it http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/disgust-and-politics/ because of the need to hide from that which they should be directing at themselves, as already argued. This can be seen in some individual issues as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/homophobia-homosexuality-gay_n_1412846.html I don't see how what we're seeing today can be ingrained/hardwired into them biologically, because collectively and individually they are far removed in too many ways from their predecessors on too many issues. And besides, who cares if it is? Being immoral/amoral, apathetic and greedy assholes is bad and/or stupid no matter the cause, no?

The bottom line is, if they have nothing to hide about themselves, why do they have to lie so much about their opposition in defense of themselves and their political/public policy pursuits? Much like with the Medicare thing, it's always a "your side is worse!", full of lies defense, no?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »