Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments Khirad – “ I thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler ” » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 29, 2011 @ 10:11 pm Ah, we agree on something! 🙂 » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 29, 2011 @ 8:00 pm KT – Going to a “ treatment ” center is one of the most catastrophic, traumatic things imaginable. The cult brainwashing, sheer irrationality, and other abuse in most of them can and do frequently lead to suicide or complete mental breakdown. I cannot believe any great number of people do it to » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 29, 2011 @ 7:57 pm Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya Yes, I’ve already seen one “ But He Didn’t Explain How It Will End!!! ” headline already ; and, yes, of the varieties of human stupidity, that is one I find to have a very special aggravating and tedious quality. Oh, joy. I think it must be bedtime soon. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 29, 2011 @ 12:11 am I’ve seen wingnut trolls all over the blog section in the past ; it was kind of peculiarly disheartening, this time, seeing 100% idiotic liberal comments. And then there was the post “ What Obama Should Say About Libya Tonight ”. I searched on the author’s name and » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 29, 2011 @ 12:05 am I just took The Nation off my favorites bar. I’ll refrain from commenting on the current contents – everything I can think of is, well, just a bit caustic. I’ll just say “ Juan Cole is an imperialist ” was one of the more coherent thoughts expressed over there. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 28, 2011 @ 10:28 pm Yes, I saw photos of the signs and parades in Benghazi. That was really something. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 28, 2011 @ 9:33 pm I’ve had the opinion that both words and actions are right since this started, but then, I listened when the President made his first statement ( and, for some reason, lacked the compulsion everyone else has to pretend he didn’t say anything, or said the opposite of what he said, and so on ). It occurred to me now that this is the first deployment of the military in an action in my lifetime which is wholly unobjectionable – and, it could even be that new model for military action they’ve been trying to find since the end of the Cold War. And if we somehow had a “ police action ” in Korea which lasted three years and involved genocide against North Korea ( the saturation bombing of every population centre, with 2 million civilian casualties ), this sure as hell is not illegal. Or is that it was alright, actually expected, to continue with Afghanistan and Iraq, but for the President to initiate anything on his own is . . . something that begins with the letter “ u ”? At what point does it begin to seem that way? A sidelight on Representative Kucinich’s Constitutional brouhaha – I looked up the War Powers Resolution of 1975 and learned some interesting things. One is that the Constitutionality of the Resolution itself, and questions of the division of authority between Executive and Congress, are unsettled ; Presidential statements relating to it are legally described as being “ in conformity with ” rather than “ pursuant to ” the Resolution. Second — and this is the good one — the Constitution explicitly authorises only a Navy. It does not authorise an Army ( or, of course, an Air Force ) ; the Founders presumed that the militia The Representative may wish to revise his argument ; but then, he couldn’t say what it was to begin with. To return to my opening topic, I commented in O / T that the manner in which the President’s clear message has been ignored — particularly in such a decisive action as this — is disturbing ; but I’ll leave that there, as there is a new thread opening up on that very subject. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 28, 2011 @ 8:37 pm Progressives are outraged that the President is now a follower of Sarah Palin, because he said “ North Star ”. 3, 2, 1 . . . » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 28, 2011 @ 7:10 pm No One Listens to the President “ The current crop of so-called liberals/progressives reminds me of their parents or their younger selves in the Seventies, pushing the Affirmative Action envelope as validation of their own liberal credentials, then systematically setting the standard higher for those people and nitpickingly criticizing everything they did until the person left the position. These people are no different. At the end of the day, the Right don’t want a black man in the White House and the Left don’t want a black man in the White House who’s smarter than they are and who won’t do what THEY demand. ” Sorry, I just wanted to repeat that. That is it. I have NEVER, NEVER for any previous President seen endless articles about what the President SHOULD do. And when did it become proper to routinely refer to the President as “ Mr. So-and-so ” ( instead of “ the President ” or “ President So-and-so ”)? Have you written at greater length on this specific topic? The Left needs to be called out loud and clear on this. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 29, 2011 @ 8:54 am There, you see – he said “ I thank President Bush ”!! BUSH III!!! Sorry . . . I’m just a little annoyed with that segment of opinion at the moment . . . I just took The Nation off my favorites bar – there’s a blogpost by some assclown with the title “ What Obama Should Say Tonight About Libya ”, did he used to post I did read it. My main impression ( I’m not sure if I have before, not all of it, anyway ) is of how clear, steady, and consistent his message has been since then until now – I think there are probably even some of the same ideas and images in the Libya speech. Noöne listens to the President. Or a lot of people don’t. A lot — a lot – of people do not accept the idea of him as President, and they are not all teabaggers. And the ones who aren’t teabaggers don’t express it the same way as teabaggers ; many of them, doubtlessly, are not even conscious of it. They express it by not listening ; by not taking what he says seriously ; by pretending to listen and then prattle on about how he said something else. That is the treatment which is accorded to someone who is considered or presumed to be unworthy of any attention at all, or of any serious attention, or to be an object of mockery. After the 2011 State of the Union, there were, not one, but two posts in the HP by liberal Ivy League academics which went through the address point by point, complaining about how on every point he said the exact opposite of what he actually said. Really. I could not make that up. The current absolute horseshit on both sides about Libya is not merely disgraceful ; it is profoundly disturbing. It raises questions about how the country would function if there were a real crisis ; or if there might be a potential danger to our newly-rewon prestige and leadership. While the Libya address was superb, I sensed a distinct element in the whole ocassion of the speech itself which is unsettling – of the President having to explain himself again, when Reagan or Clinton could bomb anything they pleased and not even have to hold a press conference. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 28, 2011 @ 11:44 pm Hey, I’m in the middle of writing a comment about this! No fair! But seriously, it is almost obvious that part of the reason for this speech is because noöne listened to the President’s previous statements. It is beginning to get disturbing, and it clearly has the potential to cause severe problems for the integrity, prestige, and leadership of the nation – this is the perhaps the most immediate and decisive action he has faced in his Administration, and the extent to which he is being simply disregarded is, not quite overtly, but in a sense latently visible. This is, in this aspect, subtle and as yet merely implicit, and it may fade ; but I am finding it troubling. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 28, 2011 @ 8:24 pm Basically, yes. I had roommates at the time who rented it, and I left the room after half an hour. ( I don’t think it should be censored, though. ) » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 28, 2011 @ 3:55 pm That connects which something I was thinking, sort of along the reverse line – I have in fact seen the Rob Zombie films ( out of some sort of nihilistic curiosity ). They do have a substantial artistic element, which may be of questionable merit, quality, or redeeming virtue ; but I can imagine the films being legitimately interesting to various segments of cinéastes. H. G. Lewis’ Blood Feast has no intended virtues at all, but is nevertheless a fascinating artefact for many more reasons than mere grossness. It could also be argued that the reason Star Wars was made ( eccentric artist’s compulsion to create a Wagnerian work requiring a radically new technology – and it’s a dissection of fascism too! ) is different from the reason most people want to see it ( to see spaceships flying around and Princess Leia / Senator Amidala ) ; and that most people who see it don’t have a deep or serious appreciation of it as an artwork. So what is the determining factor – the intent of the artist, or how something is received ( which can be almost entirely random in some cases )? And how would it be applied, and in what situations? But, what I am getting out of this is a reminder of why we don’t practice censorship. There should not ever for a moment even be a question of Salo or A Clockwork Orange being allowed for, or the danger that they might not be. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 28, 2011 @ 2:36 pm So what about Salo? Or even Blue Velvet? » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 28, 2011 @ 10:06 am I don’t remember my reasoning with regard to him, but I am very glad I voted for a different alternative candidate ( Mike Gravel, before he got Libertariany post-primary ) in the 2008 primary. I am rapidly coming to find him absolutely loathsome. It is a disgrace to the Left that this showboatting useful idiot for the far Right, whose main distinction is conferring legitimacy on Ron Paul ( his stand on G. W. Bush now having been utterly cheapened ), is viewed as some sort of hero – I would infinitely sooner bestow that sort of recognition on Representative Barbara Lee, for example, who does not get nearly as much recognition ; or on Senator Durbin, who has announced he will hold a hearing, “ Protecting the Civil Rights of American Muslims ”, while this jackass has been getting all the attention. And his appearance on Riz Khan was far worse than this. I could barely watch it, it was that disgusting. If I were on a used car lot and I saw him approaching, I would turn and run. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 24, 2011 @ 6:01 pm P. S. You have a blog? Or do you mean your ongoing feature here ( which I know I have woefully neglected, my sincerest apologies )? Please let me know. 🙂 » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 24, 2011 @ 1:52 pm Well, Governor Barbour ( who strikes me as more quasi-benignly oafish than anything, though I may be wrong ) did say “ I don’t think it’s our mission to make Libya look like Luxembourg. ” . . . . . . and we would certainly be talking about a whole different can of corn if Congo and Sudan were in Europe. The point you raise is interesting and absolutely legitimate, and I don’t think it is ever tired or pulling the race card when there is a valid question. Likewise, referring to my original premise, just as it always valid to call out racism on the Right, we should always hold our side to the same standard – and my own views on that point, like yours on yours, are the outcome of a lot of minute chafings. But, as I recall now, I did have a certain amount of, perhaps, pensiveness before posting my original comment, so I do understand your view. On the other hand, while I likewise don’t believe Representative Kucinich is racist, having watched his appearances on Riz Khan and Ed Schultz since posting I am far more disturbed by his position on this and unfavourably impressed by him. I don’t recall directly comparing him and Mike Gravel before the 2008 primary, but I can see now why I didn’t vote for him. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 24, 2011 @ 1:48 pm 2:10 – 3:00 [ REP. KUCINICH : . . . The Barack Obama of 2011 doesn’t understand the Constitution anymore. ] SCHULTZ : Do you think this is an impeachable offense? REP. KUCINICH : Well, you know, I raised the question in a phone call with my Democratic colleagues, but I raised it to talk about the limitations of the reach of executive power, I didn’t raise it to start a process. It’s clearly outside the Constitution. Now, this isn’t even a debatable question at this point. It is outside the Constitution. The President cannot take this country into war unless there’s an actual or immanent threat absent the consent of Congress. SCULTZ : But other Presidents have done it in the past and there have been no ramifications. Your thoughts on that? REP. KUCINICH : Well, every situation’s different. 5:28 – 5:44 SCHULTZ : So moving forwards, President Obama has done this. What are the, what is the politicall downfall with his base on this, what’s your take on that? REP. KUCINICH : [ ostentatious nineteenth-century melodrama sigh ] I have to tell you, I’m so focused on the Constitutional aspect, I haven’t really thought much about the political aspects of this. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/#42204977 » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 24, 2011 @ 1:02 pm Alas, who knew Spiro Agnew was such a visionary? » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 24, 2011 @ 11:38 am Well, considering his closest colleague is Ron Paul, a hookup with Darrell Issa would be neither unlikely or inappropriate. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 23, 2011 @ 11:55 pm Thank you. His appearance yesterday on Riz Khan ( Al Jazeera, accessible on their webpage ) was really, really appalling ; and, together with conferring legitimacy on Ron Paul, a pattern of being a useful idiot for the Right is emerging ( at the very least, talking about “ Obama’s war on Libya ” is a tacit endorsement of the Right’s [ approving, ironically ] misrepresentations ). But then, maybe I shouldn’t talk about strange bedfellows – Mark Levin defends constitutionality of Obama’s Libya policy: ‘Don’t listen to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich’ » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 23, 2011 @ 9:20 pm I have been genuinely surprised that there has been any controversy about this – participation in a multilateral Arab League-initiated United Nations resolution to protect civilians in Libya which barely qualifies as a military action. This is helping to crystallise a vague notion I have had. I have heard it said that in the old days, there was Southern explicit and violent racism, and then there was genteel Northern soft racism ; and in my observations of HuffingtonPostian Blameobamabotism I began to wonder whether something of the latter was operative in some parts of the Left ( particularly on the occasions when a orgy of “ Bush III ” chanting would be punctuated with “ Hillary ( you know, that real progressive [ sarcasm alert ] ) would have been less divisive ” ). This latest manufactured kerfuffle ( gee, wasn’t that something we used to only see on the Right? ) is a pretty clear example of what seems suspiciously like the President being held to a different standard, or, alternatively, being found fault with on principle. I’m not accusing Kucinich of racism – I think that would be more something in the general cultural background in this instance. Although I do note he voted against the impeachment of President Clinton, where there was even an actual trumped-up semblance of a real crime. Thank you for stating that “ not many people bother listening to this President ”. I am sick and tired of hearing that he “ doesn’t have a message ”. If one part or another of the public deliberately chooses to ignore it and heed only the content-free natterings of their chosen nabobs of either end of the spectrum, that does not therefore mean that he has no message. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 23, 2011 @ 10:58 am We Are Aiding and Abetting the Republicans Thank you for the information! In terms of real political / policy knowledge, I’m more like what Ernest Hemingway said to Ezra Pound – “ Since when are you an economist? The last I knew you were a f***ing bassoon player. ”; sometimes I feel a little embarassed when I’m reduced to turning to NBC news, Andrew Sullivan, or The Obama Diary for sanity – I start wondering if I really am a right-wing Obamabot! » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 21, 2011 @ 10:16 pm I don’t claim to be following this whole argument flawlessly, but I think you’re close to what my impression is – – there is a Sane Majority and the President will almost certainly be re-elected – ( – meaning, of course, holding the Senate and getting back some of the House are still BIG issues – ) – there ARE loud media heads causing trouble, either because that’s what they get paid for, or they just have nothing better to do with their lives – – just as with Rush and Beck, it DOES affect a certain segment of the Left – – and here is the crucial point – – no amount of “ better messaging ” from the President changes that BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE MESSAGE, THEY ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN THEIR OWN LITTLE GAME – – and THAT is where the nabobs and their dittoheads ARE ACCOUNTABLE, AND NEED TO BE EXPOSED AND CALLED OUT. Oh, and I forgot this part : because it does add up to percentage points in elections. Percentage points that make a difference in House seats, Senate seats. Maybe worse, if things got really ugly. Make sense? » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 21, 2011 @ 10:05 pm Very interesting comment – I very much like to think there is a “ Sane Majority ”. I remember finding sanity about the tax compromise in Andrew Sullivan and other more “ establishment ” I don’t know if it’s a conspiracy, so much as merely the nasty littleness of a lot of nasty little people – the sort who, after all, one would expect to fill the ranks of the vast Nattering Nabobbery that is 95% the blogosphere. And the types screaming “ Bush III ” and “ impeach ” every time any little thing hasn’t been done according to some ideologically pure model they have in their heads – I think you’ve pretty much got it all down. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 21, 2011 @ 9:52 pm Yahoo! You go, Chernynkaya! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 21, 2011 @ 9:30 pm Oh *my*, you don’t mince words, do you? I nominate you for Sane Majority Attack Dog. 🙂 BTW, I read someone attacking Dianne Feinstein ( who I don’t have an opinion of, particularly ), and someone responded with how she has been against DOMA from the beginning. I looked up the roll call on the vote, and guess who voted for? Wellstone. And some other very interesting names I don’t recall at the moment. So much for that “ purity ” . . . » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 21, 2011 @ 9:23 pm Excellent post and discussion! Phrases that have entered my vocabulary in the past year : Professional Left – all of them richly descriptive, appropriate and deserved ( and this is coming from someone who is quite capable of waxing nostalgic about the glories of the Soviet Union ). And if you question this, just picture the hordes at HP [ { apocalyptic flatulence } ] madly typing “ Bush III ” millions of times a day and let me know if you come up with a better description. The internet is basically the 24-hour news cycle ( remember those ancient, primitive days of CNN? ) cubed or cube-cubed – now there’s a LOT of hot air that needs to be supplied, fortunately for which anyone who sticks his thumb in his behind can become a major national pundit. It is good to step back ( as I have lately ), watch some regular news, and realise that the world is going on and no-one really cares about this or that blogosphere kerfuffle of the part thirty seconds ( and 95% of it, at least, really is that absolutely meaningless ). But it does have an impact, and a negative one. It certainly did last November. The internet had widened the range of positive and negative in our public life. For all of the more and better information and discussion, there is an equal amount of pockets of people choosing to stew in idiocy – and all of it, good and bad, is equally accessible at anyone’s fingertips. Or that’s all I can think of, really, to account for such breathtaking inanities as the idea of a third-party challenger ( now there’s a winning idea! ). I’ve had a couple of occasions recently to reflect on Lyndon Baines Johnson, and this is another one. While, of course, his record was severely marred by the Vietnam War, it occured to me now that, if he had been re-elected we might not have had the cavalcade of genocides ( Vietnam itself ( in the war’s ultimate escalation – 3 to 4 million civilians ), Cambodia, East Timor, I might have missed one or two ) that followed 1968. Now that’s some real realpolitik. » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 21, 2011 @ 8:47 pm Of Thee I Sing : a response to What IS leadership and what kind of leader do WE want? Thank you! » Posted By For America and Roosevelt On March 23, 2011 @ 3:28 amComments Posted By For America and Roosevelt
The purpose of the “ We agnostics ” chapter is to proselytize. Read it closely. It is unmistakable.
Some people do have a benign experience in 12-step. What it is really is at its core is stark and inarguable – and if you ever heard anyone at a meeting say “ some of us have to die so that other scan live ”, or ever heard anyone talk about someone who committed suicide with 20 years sober “ because of their disease ” ( uh huh ), you may want to put it in that context.
– the Reverend Frank Buchman, founder of the Oxford Group. Alcoholics Anonymous was a part of the Oxford Group for the first four years of its existance ( 1935 – 1939 ; their own claimed history is, shall we say, unforthcoming ).
I immediately thought of the 12-step cult when reading this – they too are murderers.
“ dodge ” anything.
“ What Bush Should Say ”, and you’ll never guess what came up – nothing! It does get a bit wearisome at times, doesn’t it?
There may be more ways than taking the Oath of Office that what the President has referred to as “ what I represent as the President ” challenges the status quo ; and the Commander in Chief leading the nation into battle is probably the preëminent archetype in the national psyche.
( federal, of course, not “ citizens’ ” ) would fulfill that role.
January 2009? Seriously. That is something else I have NEVER seen before. It is trivial, but it is annoying. I could go on and on.
“ What Bush Should Say ”? No, he didn’t ( I just searched it ). All the comments are illiterate, moronic, . . . and liberal! Well, not quite as illiterate and moronic as teabagger comments. Did I say I was annoyed?
And, disturbance aside, the mere fact of it is just offensive.
There really are many different ways that things can have many different degrees or qualities of merit or interest of many different types ( artistic, cultural, technical, artefactual, et cetera ). I think there is a fundamental difficulty in attempting to proscribe one specific type of material.
I was going to say it’s ironic that this blaringly cynical show of fabricated indignation cheapens his stand on Bush, but I can’t even say that much for him.
( Whew! ) And that is the issue we’re dealing with.
( compared to parvenu Queen Bee and her mad hive ). I never heard about the 80% support among liberal Democrats at HP. I never saw the pictures of the President smiling, being greeted by obviously admiring and respectful foreign heads of state at HP – I did see plenty of unflattering photos chosen to specifically make him look like a pimp or a buffoon in the context of whatever slanted headline they came up with.
Personally, I’m partial to the phrase “ the Summers-is-worse-than-Cheney crowd ”, I think it says a great deal. Or is it too subtle?
Yes, I suppose so . . .
left baggers
fucking retards
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats
Stats
RECENT POSTS
The MyPillow Guy To Be The MyBankruptcy Guy
“The perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.”—Federalist 1.
The Man Who Would Be Dictator
Trump said he would be a dictator on day one. Does anyone believe he will stop being a dictator at the stroke of midnight?
