Smell Ya Later, Clintons
It'll be nice to get an extended break from your garbage. Sexism didn't beat you, and neither did media bias. You beat yourselves by standing for nothing and failing to take Obama's movement seriously until it was way too late. Let's move on to the general election, please.Read
Read
Read
But What?
UPDATE: It's pretty much official
posted by stonedranger at 11:53 AM
24 Comments:
go ron pau! revolution!
so then, what ya got planned when obamarama loses? hmmm......
at least mccain will only be a one-termer...........
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
you know what else is official? the fucking clit-ripping noise show at landon's house sunday!
CUZ HE'S OLD!!!!!!!!!111111111ONEONEONE
You ain't done with them yet. Obama unofficially asked her to be on the ballot as v.p.
Obama/Sebelius 08!
Clinton said RFK didn't get assassinated until June of his election year. She's still got time if she can bankroll the job.
Half Honky, All Donkey!
Obama! 2008!
Obama's movement?
Riiiiiight.
Movements aren't comprised of people casting a ballot and patting themselves on the back.
If you think Obama and the DNC are going to do anything other than the usual American exceptionalism, you're dumb as a goddamn rock.
It's all window-dressing for Fascism. Politics don't change society. Society changes politics. And this particular society is too fucking narcissistic and lazy to do *jack shit* to that end.
But, on the plus side, at least Hillary's soul-killing drone is unlikely to prevail over Obama's feel-good oratory.
why don't you calm down a bit sweetie? no one said anything about obama making big, massive changes in american foreign policy, the economy, or anything else? im just think he is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton, and while he may not be able/willing to change anything significant, at least he will attempt to... remember, HRC ran AGAINST change and hope this year.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/electoral_college_history
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/texas/election_2008_texas_senate
So VJ, what are you doing other than voting? Because your well-thought-out anonymous comment clearly shows that you are not narcissistic and lazy, nor dumb as a goddamn rock. Tell us what we should be doing beyond engaging in politics.
i can't believe smell you later actually replaced goodbye
amplified
m'k! SWEETIE. definitely not sweet tea. unless ur gay. not that there's anything wrong with it.
"why don't you calm down a bit sweetie? no one said anything about obama making big, massive changes in american foreign policy, the economy, or anything else? im just think he is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton, and while he may not be able/willing to change anything significant, at least he will attempt to..."
You're the one who used the term "movement". There ain't one, Sugar.
"...may not be able/*willing* to change anything significant" but "will attempt to."
Did you swipe that line from Lewis Carroll? Dr. Seuss? Donna Brazile?
I'll admit "dumb as a goddamn rock" was rude, but since rudeness is the common denominator here, it seemed appropriate.
Elsewhere in the news, Mr. Change is giving AIPAC head this morning and talking tough about Iran. Remember that when Bush exports Raytheon's Pride & Joy to Tehran on his way out.
"Tell us what we should be doing beyond engaging in politics."
I'd love to provide the leadership and ten-point plan you so desperately crave, but everywhere I turn, there's a waterboard with Nancy Pelosi's picture on it.
More empty slogans from VJ... do you simply run away in terror every time someone challenges you? Instead of your uninformed Ron Paul one liners, why don't you try explaining what you are talking about for once?
He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.
Now that's a slogan (for the nitpickers, a proverb).
Fleeing in terror? Naaah, I have a lot of irons in the fire and poor time management skills. WSJR doesn't rank high on my list of priorities, but, entertainment-wise, it's almost fun. Clique-ish, petty and mean-spirited, but that's life, isn't it?
Ron Paul's no friend of mine, nor is any other politician, although Paul's stated positions on empire are commendable, especially when contrasted with that of the Dems' movers and shakers whose delicate, election-obsessed base prefers comfortable lies to uncomfortable truths.
I've done enough of this sort of humanitarian trolling to know that brevity and complex arguments online are incompatible when challenging deeply entrenched beliefs. There's a cost-benefit consideration in terms of time. If my objective was to make you look like a monkey, the I'm-Smarter-Than-You m.o. (so popular in music crit) might be a worthwhile investment. But that's not my deal.
Even the most articulate arguments in a handful of commentaries tend to be wasted when they conflict with the prevailing paradigm. That you see nothing but Ron Paul slogans (no remorse necessary; I don't take it personally) indicates we have a long way to go, but that's a given. I didn't give you much, but why would I at this point.
Attrition has possibilities. Not many, but I take 'em where I find 'em.
From what I can gather, all that you've said on here sporadically over the past few months boils down to: "Obama is just like every other politician, no American politician currently in power has either the desire or ability to change anything significant in our society/foreign affairs/international markets what have you." Am I correct in assuming that this, in a nutshell, is the main point you are trying to convey?
If so, then my response would have to be "No shit. Tell me something I don't know." Despite how you would like to characterize myself or our readers, you aren't speaking exclusively to hipster retards who don't know anything about politics, economics, sociology, or any number of other subjects you seem to believe you have an exclusive command of. I get the feeling that you think a few one liners will either blow my mind or make me so angry that I won't know how to respond. I'm trying to engage you because I think you might have something interesting to say, but I'd like to hear more. I guess you can take or leave that invitation.
Your assumption isn't correct, but I wouldn't disagree with the summary itself.
>"If so, then my response would have to be
>'No shit. Tell me something I don't know.'"
Which is what I would expect you to say. Even though it doesn't square with your previously stated optimistic assessment of Obama's intentions. I don't believe you're being disingenuous, nor am I playing a game of gotcha. But do you see the disconnect there? If so, what accounts for it?
I would never claim an exclusive command of anything besides self-expression, and I'm not entirely comfortable using 'command' even in that context. There are lots of people here, you among them, capable of schooling me in the minutiae of any number of subjects.
It's interesting to me that the three subjects to which you expressly referred - politics, economics & sociology - are ones I consider the same ball of yarn. Human nature. But I'm not the biggest fan of specialization.
>"I get the feeling that you think a few one liners
>will either blow my mind or make me so angry that
>I won't know how to respond."
Quite the opposite.
I have been known to make people angry, but it's incidental. An intentional provocation from me might raise your BP a little, but I'd have to know you well to elicit apoplexy. I'm not sadistic enough that doing so would bring me any pleasure. You strike me as pretty unflappable.
Blowing people's minds with text [here, now] is damn near impossible. It isn't in my bag o'tricks anyway since, in my experience, attempting to convey the odd personal revelation as it appears to oneself (regardless of the mode of communication) is counterproductive.
>I'm trying to engage you because I think you might
>have something interesting to say, but I'd like to
>hear more. I guess you can take or leave that invitation.
That's very thoughtful.
I'll take it.
I suppose what I am trying to understand is how you could avoid having at least a PREFERENCE in this election. I'm not saying that anyone is going to save the world, but shit, at least Obama is paying lip service to the idea of working outside the military-industrial/washington lobbyist system that currently dominates our domestic political affairs. One mistake that many people make about Obama supporters is to assume that anyone who supports Obama is part of some kind of political cult that features Obama as the omniscient leader. I know quite a bit about Obama: his political past in Chicago, his Wall Street connections, etc. And quite frankly, anyone who would assume that you could navigate your way to the top of one of the two major parties without knowing how to play the inside game is simply kidding themselves. I realize all this. But before we start a discussion about the ways in which "human nature," however you might define that, manifests itself through politics, economics and sociologically significant behavior, I would appreciate it if you would explain to me how Barack Obama, as a potential symbolic leader of our government, is so similar to Hillary Clinton or John McCain that it doesn't make even the slightest bit of difference who wins this election. A working history of both John McCain and Hillary Clinton's careers will be necessary to answer this question sufficiently I think.
I don't buy the ObamaCult! meme peddled by Hillary's supporters & pundits. If anything, the reverse seems more apt.
I'm squirming with a very nasty cluster headache today, but when it lets up, I'll do my best to answer your question WRT preference.
Articulating the reasons why I no longer participate in this democratic charade would require too damn much effort for one soliloquy, but I can list a few a random thoughts. What follows are not arguments, but personal opinions based on observation, contemplation and painful experience as a lifelong political creature of a certain age.
• No faith in the design or integrity of the voting process. Delegates are free to vote however they see fit. My ballot may or may not be counted, but either way, it is a suggestion made to party loyalists with their own agendas. My vote is not a contract. Further, when an election is marked by corruption, investigations may or may not occur, but they're essentially meaningless anyway since they're left to the same party operatives who may well have orchestrated the violations in the first place. Without mechanisms in place to assure voters' rights are upheld, disputes - civil rights violations - are a matter of PR. Democrats don't "do" PR in such cases (or with any other issues) because it means challenging the conventional wisdom, in this case, the myth that all Americans consider the right to vote as something sacrosanct. It might cost them votes in the next election. Those to whom such burdens fall would rather secure their own place in a failed institution than risk losing their influence in an institution which succeeds.
• Neither representative nor direct democracy exists without an informed electorate. Civics are barely taught at even the high school level. Lies by omission or commission are the norm in America's failed Fourth Estate. Consumers of news are not "the customer" of news outlets, but the commodity delivered to advertisers who get more than their money's worth. Journalists are boosters, not disseminators of factual information. Job One of the media outlets is to uphold myth because myth is the fuel of the status quo. Truth doesn't generate profit. Can the truth be gleaned from online sources? Yes, but it's an awful lot of work; like a daily jigsaw puzzle with ten thousand pieces. It has to be parsed and fact-checked and cross-checked to arrive at anything of value. Not surprisingly, those who get their news online have a strong tendency to select news outlets which conform to their existing world view. Few people are going to do that much work at any activity which significantly alters their existing belief system.
• The Death of Citizenship. Let's pretend we have something resembling an informed electorate, a shared belief in the sanctity of the vote and an electoral system which can be safely relied upon to accurately reflect the will of the voter (which, in our enlightened state, even includes felons). Bearing in mind the two-party stranglehold on governance, let's imagine our millionaire rulers conspire to flagrantly ignore our most basic of rights, ignoring the will of the people. "Who needs a Constitution?" they say. "These are exceptional times." Well, what then? Systematic corruption collapses the system of checks & balances which once worked reasonably well to assure self-governance, thereby leaving us with a full-blown kleptocracy. Easy. We wait for the next election and hope someone who shares our indignation runs for office. In the interim, we accept institutional corruption as the norm.
Belief in self-governance means absolutely nothing without a deep and abiding sense of commitment - shared by many - to those principles. Not a commitment to party or platform, but, fundamentally, to each other. No such commitment exists today. We vote and hope for the best and claim we've done our duty. When nothing comes of it, we shrug our shoulders, bitch and wait for the next election. "Pressure" takes the form of personal expression because we have been pacified a thousand different ways. Making rent or a house payment and generating beer money is what matters. We don't need a free, democratic society for that. The price of admission is acquiescence to authority, regardless of what form it takes.
The American identity of independence and fortitude is a myth-based joke. The United States is a nation of compliant authoritarian bootlickers, taste be damned. Unimaginative. Gullible. Unprincipled. Blind to injustices committed against us, and those we commit against others within and beyond our borders. When denial and willful avoidance no longer work, we beg for table scraps with moral theatrics from "free speech zones" holding witty signs, paralyzed by the prospect of Tasers, gas, clubs, bullets, jail, raising bail money, diminished social status and financial ruination. We write letters to editors who work for advertisers. We appeal to politicians who care not one bit what we think (why should they?) except as a means of perfecting their rhetoric at election time. Self-described progressives profess pious personal commitments to pacifism and/or "peaceful change" and convince themselves The Monster is always coming, right around the corner, but never actually here. Because, if it *is* here, then what?
Maybe I'll get around to Obama next time. It might be a while. I've got a full slate of work pending and a house payment to make.
Post a Comment
<< Home