HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HughBeaumont » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Aug 13, 2004, 03:12 PM
Number of posts: 24,461

About Me

If anyone's wondering why I haven't been here much lately, it's because I feel no one is learning anything from 2016. Neoliberalism is a thing and it doesn't win elections in the 21st Century. People want a candidate that's going to take strong, non-waffling stands on human rights the rest of the world enjoys. Enough living in the goddamned Reagan 1980s. Enough taking solar panels off the roof. Enough introducing more rightwingedness into American economics. Enough medical bankruptcies. Enough governing by mythology. Enough science denial. Enough of spitting on women, children, veterans and the LGBTQI community. Enough kicking the can. ENOUGH. America needs to move past it's "everything has to be about making a buck" bullshit. I'd prefer a candidate not born during the FDR/Truman administrations. No offense, but you had your time . . . and you got us Trump. Plus, I can't take another one of these still-Capitalist Boomer codgers yap on about "bootstraps" when college now costs a mortgage, necessity costs have been outpacing wage growth for 20 years and automation promises to kill more jobs than it creates. I don't want to hear what is or isn't "politically achievable". Kick-the-Can economics was never asked "How is it going to be paid for?". Tax Cuts for the rich were never given a spending limit. Folly wars were never asked "Why is this necessary?". Corporate Pork by the billions was and is always approved. America's safety net needs to be greatly expanded and retirement age needs to be drastically lowered. This country throws out far too many people that still have a decade or two of prime contribution left. If life doesn't get fairer for you or I pretty goddamned quickly, we aren't going to have much of one.

Journal Archives

SIIIIIIGGGGGHHHH . . . Ann, read and read well . . .

THIS is "out of context":

[font color="white"]There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me – because they want to give something back. They know they didn't – look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges;[/font] if you've got a business – you didn't build that. [font color="white"]Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.[/font]

That's what your dumbass party "built" their entire convention around . .. a deceptively-edited sound bite and what they want to hear . . . just like EVERYTHING else they selectively aurally edit.

THIS is "1000 fucking percent IN Context . .. in other words, what Mitt REALLY thinks about us":

There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, [font size="3"]who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them,[/font][font size="5"] who believe that they are [/font][font size="7"]entitled[/font][font size="6"] to health care, to food, to housing,[/font] to you-name-it. [font size="3"]That that’s an [/font][font size="6"]entitlement[/font][font size="3"]. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.[/font]

“And I mean the President starts off with 49, 49…he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.

“So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every 4 years. [font size="3"]And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.[/font]

“What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or another depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”

See, Ann? This isn't so hard!

You could probably break all of these down in a Dog Whistle Glossary . . ..

Their word = What they really mean by it.

"Entitlements" = "Why should I have to pay for Sheniqua and her nine crack babies???/?"
"Values" = "What We Learnt Bein' White n Heterosexual . . . you know, NORMAL!"
"Freedom" = "I can be as big of an uncaring asshole as I want cuz I'm a WHITE MURKIN!"
"Conservative" = "The Way Things OUGHTA Be, Commie."
"Some Say . . . " = "Normal America thinks . . . "
"Democrat Party" = "Buncha pansy, sissy Ni**er-lovin COMMIES!"
"Austerity" = "Whatever it means, I won't be hurt by it. The Welfare recipients will!"
"Job Creators" = "True Hard Working Americans who I hope to BE PART OF someday!"
"We Built It" = "We Built It"
"Welfare Queen" = "Insert racial, ethnic or gender slur here)s"
"Statist/Marxist/Socialist/Socialism" = "All Democrats"
"Playing the Race Card" = "Why don't we have a WHIIIIIITE ENTERTAINMENT CHANNEL???"
"Right To Work" = "Whatever it means, I won't be hurt by it!"
"Liberty" = "FREEDOM!! Well, except for the gays, women and (insert racial slur here)"
"Founding Fathers" = "Founding Christians"
"Nanny State" = "Murka should just be a free for all!! Hey Shitter, watch me jump this fence with my jet ski . . ."
"Fiscal Conservative" = "More War, Less welfare!"
"Real America" = "Not the (Insert racial, ethnic or gender slur here)s"
"We're going to take this country back" = "I'm going to take me a gun and kill all the (Insert racial, ethnic or gender slur here)s I seeeeee . . . "
"Feminazi" = "Git in the kitchen whur you belong, stupid!"
"Religious Freedom" = "Why CAN'T that Chick Filet guy tell it like it is about the homos without all these libs runnin' their yaps?"
"Small Government" = "Reagan, the Greatest Preznit Next to Bush!"
Posted by HughBeaumont | Sat Sep 8, 2012, 11:00 AM (1 replies)

Found an interesting comment about Romney on a blog that might have some truth to it . . .


This particular entry is in response to an article about how many lies Mitt Romney has told in a period of 30 days (533 lies). It might not be too far off in explaining why a guy who's worth a quarter of a billion dollars wants to be President (thanks to Ross).

Romney is running for president for the same reason as the reason for most of the things the 0.1% do. He wants to be president to keep one of them from being president.

At a certain point of sociopathy, it's not about what you can get for yourself, but about what you can keep the proles from having.

That's what's keeping the alliance from collapsing from in-fighting. I mean, if it was just about accumulating wealth for yourself, why keep trying to screw the poor? If you want to double your wealth, you won't do it by taking the last 2% of the global wealth from the poor -- you'll get it by bankrupting your rivals and taking *their* money. Poaching ONE Koch brother will fatten your bank account more than raiding the pensions of a million wage-slaves.

But they don't because it's not about increasing their wealth -- they've got so much already that any sense of "more" is purely academic. But you know what they *can* quantify? What they deny to others.

If I'm healthy, additional "health" isn't going to make me healthier, but denying healthcare to others *will* have a visible effect.

If I've got a billion dollars, another hundred thousand means very little to me. But if I can take a hundred thousand dolars and in doing so, reduce a family to desperation, that's something I can look at, and say "Behold my accomplishment!"

Mitt Romney wants to be president so that no one else can have it. Especially someone who might do some good with it.

Just another toy to collect . . . . to say he has it?
Go to Page: 1