Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


TheKentuckian's Journal
TheKentuckian's Journal
Missing entry

Missing entry

March 3, 2015

Yes we are all Democrats. That is checking a box. No, we don't seem to have common aims in general.

Reposted as an OP by request.

No, it is not our common goal enrich the wealthy at the expense of workers.

It is not our common goal to propagate interventionist wars of aggression for wealth and power. 

It is not our common goal to export our jobs to pad pockets. 

It is not our common goal to loot the commons. 

It isn't our common goal to privatize public education. 

It is not our common goal to destabilize governments that don't play ball. 

It is not our common goal to continue the stupid and failed drug war. 

It is not our common goal to destroy regulation and oversight of business nor to turn it into a sham of "self regulation". 

It is not our common goal to crush the wages of the American worker. 

It is not our common goal to play global police force, particularly on our own budget destroying expense. 

It is not our common goal to prop and expand Too Big to Fail companies. 

It is not our common goal to cut Social Security nor does it appear to be a common goal to expand it. 

It isn't a common goal to subvert and destroy enumerated rights for security. 

It is not a common goal to whitewash and "look forward" and cover for torturing, murdering, destroying criminals. 

It is not our common goal to frack up the nation and drill, baby, drill anywhere except the very tippy top of the list of places it is irresponsibly insane to do so. 

It is not a common goal to set up a "just us" system where the rich and powerful are unaccountable. 

Sure there are common goals like wanting everyone to be able to vote or acceptance that someone has to pay to keep the lights on in the government, that government has a role in society, that generally speaking that at least the women who can afford an abortion hold have access to the service (if they can't gets a little more sticky, many support Hyde) but pretending they all are is absurd in its apparent belief that any outcome is possible from about any policy. 

No, I don't care one bit about the convictions of conservatives and corporatists other than they stop polluting the already too toxified nation with their nonsense not helping them fuck us over some more. 
No, it isn't my job to help anyone oppose and destroy much of what I struggle for to be "unified", some folks need to unify with the fucking TeaPubliKlans and stop trying to assimilate us to their worldview even if they are pro choice or the targets of racism. 

It is silly to work tirelessly to make the party come as close as possible to standing for nothing or everything and then turn around and be crying for absolute loyalty to the formless blob of nothing they created. 

It is a LIE, you cannot logically represent everyone someone will be represented and someone is going along for the ride and "Big Tent" is the refrain of those that demand more corporate and right wing domination. Never is it said to want more leftist voices...NEVER. It is wholly a guilt play to appeal to the liberal desire to be inclusive to advance contrary conservative interests. 

If you have been called a Conservadem, a Thirdwayer, or a DINO it is probably because you are corporate enabling, interventionist, free trading conservative that due to being temporarily embarrassed, not being overly churchy, a conservative minority the TeaPubliKlans will make a token of but never truly accept, embrace corporate politicians, or are a willing enemy to our civil liberties with a lame as circle D by your name while spitting venom about "the far left" like a Rush or a Prager, calling people lame shit like "firebagger" and "emoprog" and talking a lot of stupid shit about rainbow farting unicorns and ponies (no idea what the equine fixations are about, maybe this crowd really grew up wanting ponies). 

June 9, 2013

I don't know about well camouflaged. Most are pretty open about what they stand for

look at the embrace of Reich wing policy, corporatism, destruction of our civil liberties, education deform, constant defense of austerity, and on and on. Certain folks are pretty right wing and all is well as long as they recite their "hail Obamas" and a "hail Hillary" or two while avoiding open bigotry.

February 6, 2013

Do you trust the Presidency regardless of occupant with such power?

If not then you do not get to make any one human an exception to our form of law and government, Obama is a human, we are not supposed to hang by "trust" in a personality and then extends that "trust" effectively without end or enforceable or even verifiable boundary or limits as an inherent outcome of said "trust".

I think this is crazytown territory.

November 17, 2012

Not even then.

We don't need more people in the labor force and need less and less as we move into the future all more people does is reduce life time wages for most people and the program gets worse off.

Then all this talk of the ease of a desk job till 70 is batshit crazy as well, even if bodies are better preserved, the minds tend to be less sharp, health issues mount, and employers are less inclined to hire and retain.
There isn't a single 60 year old in my job, none even in management. There are very few 50 year olds and at 40, I'm an old dog, older or the same age as management.
I'm not going to be able to keep up the pace at 60 if my job is still even around and by 70, I'll be long gone wishing Walmart still needed greeters no matter how much I want to keep doing it, which I won't because I'll be burnt out and far too slow to be an asset.

No one is talking a mandatory work life expiration date here, if you are in demand and able then rock on but it is folly to pretend that such will be the average condition for workers.

It foolish, cruel, and soulless along with being counter productive to the asserted aim, why do you want to expand on a glut of workers? What in the world is in it for you? Trying to reduce labor costs?

August 14, 2012

He started his push with a generational lead in the Senate and a huge advantage in the House

Nobody forced him into Simpson-Bowles, he sought it out after the TeaPubliKlans walked on the preceding binding committee.

We beat back Junior's privatization scheme from the minority, without the White House. Forced my ass. The whole push was DOA and he keep reviving it and even managed the economy shrinking trigger after the last failure and claims he will keep pushing for a "grand bargain".

If you keep trying to do things some folks are going to believe you are trying to do them and there is no guarantee that those hoodwinked are those you set out to fool. The TeaPubliKlans haven't softened their positions, the media isn't playing off of it, it didn't endear independents, it didn't blunt corporate America or the Chamber of Commerce one iota. If it is an act then it is time for the hook and pull that failed turkey off the stage and run it out on a rail.

I'm convinced but no way I was the target audience, if it was an act, I firmly believe Obama is not only tolerant of some cuts but wants some. Not privatization, not to pull the rug out from under current retirees (though comfortable with starting to "bend the curve" now by arresting payouts), but because he actually believes that some modifications are required because he surrounds himself with neoliberal figures that believe in a similar vein and HE KEEPS TRYING and pushing the issue in an environment where the more sensible changes to generate more revenue are impossible.

If he actually wanted to raise the cap then such a proposal should have come to committee and then to the floor in the first two years rather than going through supporting a binding deficit commission and then Simpson-Bowles.

July 28, 2012

Return to intent, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I also think that people should re-commit to the militia (though participation is not required to keep and bear) by neighborhood, then, community, and then a national organization. Knowing your neighbors and having common cause would potentially bring people together and foster more integration and less characterizing each other while building organization in case of "unimaginable" events and natural disaster.

I'm betting that a Katrina situation (on the ground) would be a lot less likely to happen in such circumstances. People leave strangers behind not members of their unit.

Liberals need to internalize that our job isn't to reduce the rights of the people and even in such an necessity, never to transfer that power to the few but rather to in great and pressing need remove it entirely.
I don't favor civilians with nuclear arms but then I'm against the military having them either and the prospect of individuals with such stuff would straighten out some thinking and keep people from hiding behind authority to justify backing insanity.

If the people cannot be trusted with power then no one can. The people are the source of all power in a democracy (whatever brand it is be it direct or representative). Any power and authority the government has is held in stewardship on behalf of the people. The notion that the government grants our rights is anti-liberal, deeply right wing, and wrongheaded and sure as hell isn't in the neighborhood of liberal.
Of course the modern "progressive" movement has authoritarian elements. In fact just as authoritarian as many in the far right but with a predilection to use the power of government to compel their agenda rather than going at it from the perspective of the anti-government agenda though the two can team up to degrade our civil liberties for "safety" or to foment the drug war or to censor/monitor communication by tapping our phones and having internet kill switches.

The authoritarian "left" is an anchor around the wider movement and in fact controls the agenda. We'll make little real progress and probably go backward on the net as long as we allow this folks to be a driving force.

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jun 6, 2008, 02:47 AM
Number of posts: 24,701

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»TheKentuckian's Journal