Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 41,818
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 41,818
And when I've mentioned my p.o.v. about it here on this board I've been told a couple of times that I should just be gracious.
It's especially grating on the VA 800# in light of the past decades of their horrible headlines about their dealing with vets.
I'm appreciative of the life experience, both good and bad, my enlistment resulted in. It broadened me to things that I wouldn't have found in such a concentrated dose otherwise. And for that appreciation I wear a USN ballcap and other things, not in the gung-ho John WAYNE (fake veteran in the movies; draft dodger) kind of way, and I would like to wear these things for my own reasons without triggering an obligatory gung-ho John WAYNE type of reaction.
As Charlie RANGEL has said for many years, many enlistees join the military for reasons of not being able to get higher education and jobs rather than for the stereotypical reasons that chickenhawks imagine.
I've had bozos in Happy Hour situations come up to me because of my cap or something and SCREAM six inches from my face, "SIR! YES SIR!!!!!!" because of what they've seen in movies. Really.
I'm willing to agree that time spent is "service," but its own reward.
Posted by UTUSN | Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:53 PM (0 replies)
First, some definitions:
* “They” – who are “they”? 1- his outright supporters. 2- Repukes who opposed or were scared to lose with him. 3- Latino Repukes who are now outraged. 4- Media enablers.
* “Neutral” (as in judges presiding in his lawsuits) means “finding in his favor.” When he says minority judges have conflicts of interest over his anti-minority/race/religion beliefs and cannot be “neutral” he means anything not in his favor is not “neutral.” Carrying his postulate to its natural extreme, in a DRUMPF society there would not be any judges at all, at least not in his thousands of lawsuits, because any and every adverse ruling towards him would be attributed to something in their personal history that would be a conflict. No adverse rulings would be allowable, period.
* “DRUMPF” – is this usage of "DRUMPF" participating against him in his own kind of “heritage” prejudice? To me, it is highlighting that immigration is a very large topic in his life story (grandparents, mother, two of his three wives) and yet he made it something *negative*. In the light of that, to just say “TRUMP” would be to play along with his apparent façade that he sprung generically “American” like from Zeus’s head. Some amateur psychologizing here, is his fury on immigration a self-hating thing?!1
*********So, proceeding right along...
What did they, the core supporters, expect? We are told he freed them with political incorrectness, to say aloud what they/everybody secretly thinks but have been shamed into silence, meaning racist stuff. The ugliness in him was there from Day 1 but only now are there signs it might be coming home to roost. Did they think that their ugly inner beliefs would be made to be mainstream, normal, and respectable?
So what did they/Repuke leaders think, that their voters have spoken so they must go along and after the DRUMPF debacle (win or lose, there *will* be a debacle) they can claim to be exonerated by having qualified their support?
And the media enablers. They started out acting like DRUMPF’s bombs were CUTE, like he was a naif on “deep” policy matters and was only spouting refreshing, unfiltered things. And now it’s too late. The same as the media during 2000 when they thought Shrub was cute and any hint of toughness on him was said to be harsh, like he somehow deserved kid gloves.
And what did the ethnic/minority Repukes, expect when they became Repukes? The broad strokes are that Repuke-ism is for the racist and the greedy, that is all. One Ana NAVARRO, a media Repuke, is being lauded for a rant against DRUMPF’s racism. She has a tweet saying she became a Repuke at eight years old, RAYGUN blah blah. Isn’t this proof that eight years old ain’t the time for making life decisions?!1 Meanwhile, Alberto GONZALEZ, whatever mental age *he* is, continues his blind Repuke-ism by justifying DRUMPF’s right to question the “fairness” of judges based on ethnicity. And Ruben NAVARRETTE continues his animus toward “White Liberal males” with his accustomed “advice,” this time on how DRUMPF should “follow his own trail of breadcrumbs” to accomplish wooing Latinos (hah hah).
As for the violence of some supposedly anti-DRUMPF individuals, some five (5) scenarios: Could be such violence infringes on the free speech and association of others and everybody; could be legitimate revolution-type redress against threatened oppression and discrimination; could be criminal delinquency taking advantage of opportunity like looting at race riots; could be real life conspiracy of DRUMPF false flagging; could be tit for tat against DRUMPF-ites pepper spraying them. Last night’s Kanye WEST “riot” shows that criminal delinquency is very real and sparked by the most random things. It also honestly true that we Libs, with our characteristic of looking within for root causes of things, tend to wring our hands and blame ourselves and be concerned for others who might be oppressed (some of our enemies), so we are particularly susceptible to we’re-BETTER-than-that, meaning we’re BETTER. Well, no we’re not. All of us, Lib or wingnut, are just human and contain the whole spectrum from good to evil.
The single biggest point about DRUMPF is what I learned from defending Bill CLINTON, that somebody with the big personality and the big personal problems turns everything away from the national agenda into spending all energy into defending him, a total distraction.
Posted by UTUSN | Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:17 PM (0 replies)
This is worth it:"newly emboldened (by DRUMPF)American Racist." Cannot vote him,stay home,or spoiler
The Newly Emboldened American Racist
I have to thank Mr. Trump for opening my eyes to the American ugly I didn’t want to see. I needed a wake up call. I’m not closed off in some strange, futuristic liberal world. I live in a diverse community with a mix of political and social viewpoints, and I consistently read newspapers and websites with differing ideologies. I know my American history and I know what racist people have been saying about President Obama for the last eight years. I’ve watched the videos of young black men shot by cops. And I’ve listened to the calls for racial justice on college campuses. I’ve worked on a college campus where I was the minority, and my students have spoken and written about their experiences. Throughout my life I’ve heard stories from my Jewish friends about the nasty comments they’ve endured. So yes, I understand how deeply racism and bigotry run through American culture — as much as any educated, white, Protestant person can really understand it — even if I don’t hear it in my home or my backyard.
But what I didn’t understand until this election, until I started paying closer attention to the voices of ordinary Americans, is how terrifying it is to read what some of them write on public forums, or to hear them say out loud what they really think about other Americans. The racists and bigots of America have always been out there. There have always been hideous trolls on the Internet. But now they are emboldened in a big way by the bellicose Donald Trump. He’s opened Pandora’s box, and nobody can shut it.
Look: I’m going to write this again and again, right up until Election Day. You cannot view this election solely as a choice between two platforms, two parties, or two personalities. This election is about much bigger issues. It’s about the way way we look at people, and talk about them, and care for them. It’s about the soul of America and its relationships to the world. If you care about that, you cannot vote Trump, or stay home, or vote for a third party spoiler.
How can this man, who has fomented so much anger and hate, represent the United States to the World, and to its own people? How will minorities feel safe in the U.S. if he is president? How can this country stand to be even further divided? The chasm is already too wide.
In his victory speech after Indiana, Trump said, “we’re going to love each other, and cherish each other.” But the hate will go on and on, If Trump is president, a possibility that moved one giant step closer to reality Tuesday night. And if that happens, none of our bubbles will be able to save us from ourselves.
Posted by UTUSN | Wed May 4, 2016, 10:07 PM (3 replies)
Yes, I do know that, and that despite their throwing a hissy fit over Julius's taking over,after him
they never looked back at their Republic. No, Tiberius and many others didn't always/often pick the most qualified. Tiberius picked Caligula out of contempt and spite, saying that Rome deserved the vileness. It was more often than not who was left standing after this or that slaughter.
Now, not that my O.P. rant is so original, but it's GENERAL, not a pretense at scholarship, so the point is not the details but that a system that is not reformed and refreshed will collapse under the dead wood of its own weight. Oh, well, they all do, even over the 5,000 years of Chinese dynasties.
Ah, well, my rant was my own personal indulgence, so I'll take a good night.
Posted by UTUSN | Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:30 AM (0 replies)
I'm not going to apologize for what I post. Short of such an apology, it should suffice to reveal to anybody it might concern that I have insight into my own pluses and minuses and to some degree of awareness while they happen, such that I am actively choosing to let my minuses fly about as they might. FWIW, I am too often offended or embarrassed by my own posts, but also decided at some point not to run away from them.
Like many others, I have whined about spending much time and energy honing a coherent and original post only to see it sink like a stone, while any little off-the-wall nutcase free association of mine will reach heights of flames, outrage, and contempt.
The internet, this DU discussion board, has been the single biggest education for me of my life. And isn't DU so incredibly fortunate to be the exclusive beneficiary of my divine contributions (Do I really need a Sarcasm tag here?!1)?!1 Really, having achieved what used to be considered wonderful academic credentials, I realized that my Liberal Arts were worthless, that the one skill that made an actual difference in my real world work experience was: TYPING. And this discussion board has taught me some (not enough for me; I'm really too backward to have picked up much) life experience, street smarts, like developing a shell and occasionally being big enough to let some things slide.
But what I'm trying to say is that, especially here in Lounge, besides just this being an internet discussion board fer-gudness'sake (tag line from
Posted by UTUSN | Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:17 PM (13 replies)
Am saving this into my Journal so I won't lose it.
Make7’s chart: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1256&pid=1674
Chart ASCII: http://www.theasciicode.com.ar/extended-ascii-code/majuscule-c-cedilla-uppercase-ascii-code-128.html
á Á é É í Í ó Ó ú Ú ¿ ¡ ü ñ Ñ ç Ç
æ Æ ø Ø £ º ® ½ ¼ ¾ © ¢ ─ │ ┤ ÷ ± ¶ §
Below, substitute open/close brackets for paretheses:
font size: (font size=5) (/font) (font size=6) (/font) (font size=7) (/font)
(b) (/b) (i) (/i) (u) (/u) (strike) (/strike)
(FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow") (/FONT)
Posted by UTUSN | Mon Jan 4, 2016, 02:58 PM (1 replies)
Truth or Consequences
May 2012 By Joehagan
.... And that (1996) is when a mysterious document began circulating in Austin that would serve as the Rosetta stone of the Bush National Guard controversy. The document, a single-page letter written by an anonymous author and addressed to a U. S. attorney, described an alleged secret deal struck between George W. Bush and Ben Barnes in which Barnes agreed to withhold the story of getting the governor into the Guard in exchange for Bush’s securing the GTECH contract against competing bidders.
The memo fingered a Bush aide named Reggie Bashur as the one who brokered the alleged quid pro quo: “Bashur was sent to talk to Barnes who agreed never to confirm the story and the Governor talked to (Miers) two days later and she then agreed to support letting GTech keep the contract without a bid.” And indeed, the previous summer, Miers had renewed the GTECH contract without a bid, against the wishes of state Republicans. ....
... One year after the fateful 60 Minutes segment aired, two FBI agents paid a visit to the Manhattan apartment of Larry Littwin, the former Lottery Commission executive director. If he were cleared to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the agents asked, what might he say about (Harriett) Miers’s invovement with GTECH during her time as chair of the commission? According to Jerome Corsi, who had resurfaced, post-Kerry, as one of Miers’s fiercest critics, what Littwin proposed to allege was quite a lot: that more than $160,000 in legal fees Miers collected from Bush in the nineties were a de facto payoff for maintaining the quid pro quo agreement with Ben Barnes and GTECH.
Regardless of the legitimacy of these allegations, White House officials were paying attention, in part because they were coming from the right. Miers’s nomination was already in deep trouble by the time Littwin emerged. But Corsi remains convinced to this day that the threat of Littwin’s testimony was the last straw for Miers. According to him, it was the GTECH deal, and not the CBS memos, that could have been the real smoking gun against Bush. “The day after they validated that Littwin was going to be called to the Senate Judiciary Committee, that’s when she pulled her nomination,” Corsi told me. ....
Posted by UTUSN | Sat Oct 17, 2015, 12:32 PM (18 replies)
Actually, I sort of liked it for being serviceable but mostly loved the FDR setting and references.
Now, let’s clear the next year’s garbage out of the way: I care about the Democratic AGENDA, not the personalities (idols). I don’t worship her, OBAMA, the KENNEDYs, or several other past Democratic nominees. But any Dem short of criminality is better than any Repuke, and our system is WINNER TAKES IT ALL. All of our Dem nominees have been more intelligent, more NOBLE, more DECENT than any of their opponents, but noble LOSERS accomplish nothing. Only the WINNER gets to do anything, even if only NOMINATING thousands of judges and bureaucrats/grunts who make policy down the line.
As for Hillary, I was very strong for her in ‘08. But she was a bust. OBAMA totally flummoxed her out of nowhere. Let’s be clear: ANYBODY could have won against the Repukes that year because of George W. BUSH. ANYBODY. The Repukes have mocked OBAMA about “CHANGE” being non-existent and empty. Actually, obviously, the word “CHANGE” was code for: ANYTHING DIFFERENT FROM GEORGE W. BUSH. No other agenda was needed.
As for Hillary and my support today. If she’s the nominee (who else?) of course I will support her as I have every Dem nominee from every wing of the coalition. I don’t care about finding a candidate who fits a checklist of appropriate issues: If they don’t have the common touch to WIN, yammering over issues is as futile as a college bull session of "If I Ruled the World" or a medieval monk's thoughts on angels.
As for her personally, coming from me: She’s been around too many blocks, for starters. She irritates/grates me, her voice, her total lack of charisma. I was raised in a family of strong women and my first vote was for a woman, and yet I was antagonized that at her rally in ‘08, I guess it was supposed to be for women and “girls” only since they gave sidewise ugly looks at us males, like we weren’t supposed to be there. She’s a lousy candidate: She never saw OBAMA or anybody else coming; threw away millions on the same tired P.R. people who have lost campaigns for decades; mismanaged the campaign to end up in debt; she’s a RED MEAT TARGET for wingnuts. Very possibly, she MIGHT LOSE, which is the worst thing ever. If she wins, get ready for Fake Impeachment #2. If she loses, get ready for JEB CROW SHRUB, the worst ever.
I have hope that she is different from Bill in that in her lifetime of politics she knows how precious being in office is, to work for the agenda, instead of Bill's having wasted the winning with his hanky panky: What I learned from Bill was that, with a leader who has to be defended non-stop, all our precious energies are wasted on defending one individual instead of all of our energies, including the leader's, being spent on the agenda.
Posted by UTUSN | Sun Jun 14, 2015, 12:00 PM (1 replies)
EXCLUSIVE: Cast aside by Rudy Giuliani, former NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik still has 'enormous love and respect' for former mayor
....“I don’t think anybody, any mayor, has done anything for the city like he did. None,” Kerik told a crowd of several hundred people Thursday night at the launch of his new book, “From Jailer to Jailed.” ....
As The News reported Sunday, Kerik said Giuliani — at the time prepping to run for president — stopped calling him, and returned a bronze statue of a horse that he’d given him as a gift on behalf of his young daughters.
Giuliani was their godfather. ....
“I have an enormous amount of love and respect for the man, and for what he did for New York City ... I want to make that clear.”
Kerik said that U.S. Rep. Peter King, a Long Island Republican who was at the party, visited him every few months, and that the Manzo family of “Real Housewives of New Jersey” fame helped take care of his kids while he was behind bars.
Also at the party was former Westchester County D.A. Jeanine Pirro, Mitchell Modell, Geraldo Rivera, and Kerik’s, brother Donald Kerik.
But this gives me an excuse to re-run my eyewitness account of WINGNUT HOT SEX involving KERIK and whoever:
Where to start with KERIK -- well, might as well be with the bit from Cindy ADAMS's 05-29-13 social note to the effect that Bernie taught a LIFE CLASS while in prison and he'll be happy if his wisdom helps keep ONE dude from returning to prison. Did he give himself extra credit for auditing himself so that HE! won't be one of the returnees?!
But for youngsters, a Brief History: Bernie was GHOULIANI's police comish on THE 9-11, and shot to supposed "leadership" and Security fame in that VOID of same when pResident Shrub was lost for three days, and when Shrub-CHEENEE had to create SOMEthing to appear responsive, besides Color Codes, they needed a Security tsar, and GHOULIANI sponsored this Bernie dude, who then had to be withdrawn because he was on the road to PRISON!
Nay, but the most fruitful chapter involved one Judith REGAN, who was a protégé herself, her mentor somebody bigger than GHOULIANI, Rupert MURDOCH of NewsCorp/Faux Propaganda Network, who gave her her own publishing imprint, "REGAN Books" that was responsible for LIMBOsevic's first book and a slew of other wingnut crap. She was known for devil-wears-prada horrifics of temperament, one time challenging her staff to be creative by screaming at them, "Why do women like Bill CLINTON?! Because they WANT TO FUCK HIM, THAT'S why!" Finally, she crashed and burned around the time of a title, "If I Did It" ascribed to O.J. SIMPSON.
But while she was in full blossom with MURDOCH, she even scored a half hour interview show on Faux on Saturday nights, where she would interview other wingnuts and excoriate Dems/Libs. Scathingly. But one of her authors was this selfsame Bernie, who had (supposedly, since you never know who writes O'LOOFAH's books either) penned his biography. The hook was that this totally macho man, TOUGH, the most testosterone filled life form EVER! told in this book the SENSITIVE, heart wrenching story of having been abandoned by his disturbed mother, who puzzled the boy by not showing up to claim him at a hearing, and he found out years later she had been confined or something .
Fine. But the really "good t.v." was what, to an insightful eye like that of moi, was going on in this interview. Well, it was hard to see the screen sometimes, due to there being some kind of steam or film clouding up the camera lens. La Judy and Bernardo had an eyelock, more hers than his, that was more secure than GHOULIANI's office. As she teetered in her chair, body all taut and rigid, her eyes pierced him, wingnut heart breaking over his sad sad story. But then they shifted, inevitably, to 9-11, and she asked him, intensely, "Where were you when you first heard?!" As lawyers say, never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. So he shyly let his head duck down a bit then looked up at her with puppy dog eyes and said gruffly, toughly, but sensitively, "Stepping out of the shower. (Pause, pause.) After working out."
Whoa! the smoke alarms went off louder than the Emergency Broadcast System! Like Frida KAHLO's self-portrait with Diego RIVERA's face imprinted on her forehead, Bernie's presumably nekkid image was just PALPABLE on Judy Judy Judy's area where Frida had her unibrow.
At that time, none of us knew anything beyond the public information about these people, but I SENSED something was UP with these two. Much later, sure enough, it appears that the publisher-author relationship had another depth and plumb to it, yes, WINGNUT HOT SEX, because why should workplace sex be for Bill and not bipartisan?! But not only that, their love nest for their Wingnut Hot Sex sessions was no place other than an NYC apartment paid for by the City as a rest-up place for First Responders or clean up crews of the WTC site. That's all right, those people were probably too busy to need a rest-up apartment anyway, and no sense letting things go to waste.
Meanwhile, in all these years since 9-11, GHOULIANI has been collecting filthy lucre all over the globe, Mexico City anywhere, for giving whatever his expertise is on Security against terrorism, along the lines of how to walk down the street with dust and powder on you and then how to insert and enunciate "nine eleven" into any conceivable topic with inconceivable frequency.
Posted by UTUSN | Sat Apr 4, 2015, 02:09 PM (0 replies)
How did Jeb Crow Shrub get pegged as "the smart one"? Entitled goofiness is in the family genes, start with Poppy. And Shrub's goofiness is well documented. Then take a glimpse at "Access Hollywood" where one Billy BUSH is on display. And recently at a doctor's waiting room I looked at a business/financial magazine I wouldn't otherwise ever see and there was a profile of one Jonathan BUSH, as a flaky nutty bozo cashing in as CEO of some kind of healthcare (Athenacare?) company, cashing in on OBAMAcare, the family m.o. being feeding at the public trough - with company conferences full of costumes and booze.
I haven't delved into the Jeb Crow Shrub psyche beyond a scattered detail about his business dealings with 1stGenExile/CIA Cubans, milking Medicare, involving boarding private planes with suitcases full of cash. And Neil Shrub's Savings and Loan bailout from the public. And Poppy fuming at reporters, "My boys have a right to make a living!1"
Yet Jeb Crow Shrub has somehow built an image of being sober and thoughtful. Now it's clearer why he didn't have a meltdown over his kids' (
Also, for such an elitist family, he comes across as having the hinterland's chip on the shoulder toward "Eastern elites."
Photograph by Jeff Mitchell. The author's article “Brother Dearest,” published in the July 2001 issue of Vanity Fair.
6:45 PM, January 23 2015
Revisiting Jeb Bush’s Bad Behavior at Andover
By David Margolick
Perhaps because it seemed Jeb Bush could never be president—his brother had just been elected and, even then, the thinking was that two Bushes would be quite enough—his classmates at Andover reminisced quite freely about him with me in 2001, when I profiled him for Vanity Fair.
“There was a kind of arrogance to him,” one of them told me, describing Bush’s membership in a “clique of wealthy kids.” “I remember him smoking a lot of dope,” he added. ....
LeBoutillier urged reporters to investigate the matter further, comparing it to the widely-reported story of a young Mitt Romney pinning down a gay student at his Michigan prep school and cutting off his blond bangs, which for some reason he’d found offensive. “If that event is worthy of the front page of the Washington Post,” wrote LeBoutillier, “then the Jeb Bush Illegal Drug and Liquor Distributorship is certainly something the voters—especially GOP primary voters—have a right to know before they begin to choose a 2016 candidate.” ....
Jeb steered clear of politics—no mean feat during the Vietnam era. “I don’t recall his ever being particularly interested in anything we did,” recalled Andrew Bridges, who headed the Progressive Andover Republicans. Like many of Bush’s classmates, Bridges sort of liked the guy. But others disagreed: one told me he was “slightly snarly and spoiled.” “I wouldn’t associate ideas with Jeb,” said Peter Halley, who became an artist. “He was laid back—a little bit goofy.”
Andover back then was a thoroughly cliquish place, divided neatly into “jocks,” “nerds,” “freaks,” and “zeroes.” Bush was hard to pigeonhole—he was captain of the tennis team and was friendly with several black students—but was also, improbably (as one classmate called him) “a budding hippie.” “If you found him sitting, it was further toward the freak end of the dining room,” Lincoln Chafee, later a United States senator and governor of Rhode Island, told me in 2001. “He was kind of a slob, actually.” ....
Though they had more pressing matters to discuss—like how they can run for president simultaneously without knocking one another out—perhaps Bush and Romney swapped prep school stories during their powwow in Utah this week. But while Romney famously forgot the hair-cutting episode, Bush seems to have some insight into his former preppie self. “I was,” as he once put it, “a cynical little turd at a cynical little school.”
Posted by UTUSN | Sat Jan 24, 2015, 01:02 PM (6 replies)