Give 'em time.....Originally Posted by The Grey Badger
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Posts
- 998
Give 'em time.....
I see little difference between the Paul-Bots and the Obama-Bots, they are both blind followers of a personality cult. Both attract naive fools (I was one of those naive fools back in 2008), but Paul also attracts people who use Libertarian ideology to justify their selfishness and sociopathic behavior.
The point is that RW Libertarians like Paul are not REALLY libertarian, they are a special kind of authoritarian social dominator to whom "liberty" means the classical liberty of the Roman aristocracy, the freedom of the strong to exploit the weak. it is the same conception of "liberty" held by Southern Planters.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
That is the whole problem with progressives, it really doesn't matter to them since it is all done in the name of a good cause.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
- Ludwig von Mises
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
- Lazarus Long
Paul is the classic example of a broken clock being right twice a day, his occasional reasonable ideas are swamped by loony crap.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Whatever you have to say about Ron Paul, he is a consistent federalist. However Mr Paul would not be considered a serious contender for the Republican nomination if there was a candidate who the base could rally around.
"The f****** place should be wiped off the face of the earth".
David Bowie on Los Angeles
I would agree with you fully.
"The f****** place should be wiped off the face of the earth".
David Bowie on Los Angeles
Right on! To hell with the dead and mained, past and future! Opposition to murder is only something Paul accidentally supports! He's otherwise completely unworth your time!
(For my part, I'm not a Paul booster, mind. No one is fit to wield The Ring. I just hate hypocrisy.)
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
NOBODY for president! None of the above, ever! Abolish the office! Tear down Mt. Rushmore!
To be perfectly clear, I do not mean to sound like I am carrying Obama's water.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
I think Justin would approve of that, LMAO!
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
I agree, a good piece. The author being a progressive, I certainly agree with him!
I'm sure Odin would agree that Obama is at best the lesser of two evils, and I certainly have no qualms about doing so; but some other Democrats and progressives feel they have to line up behind the partisan parade and speak no evil.
Our election system is ludicrous, but does anyone want to hazard a guess as to how long from now, if ever, it will be reformed?
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-01-2012 at 11:26 PM.
Leave Rushmore. There's still a statue of Dzerzhinsky in a park on the Neva... One where all the trees and grass have pulled out and graveled over so nothing green will ever grow anywhere around him.
Historical things are important.
Last edited by Justin '77; 01-01-2012 at 11:52 PM. Reason: so many verb tenses to choose from...
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
I would guess that a "bot" is by definition a blind follower.
I would guess that most Obama supporters today are quite aware of his failings, but see the alternative as much worse. I place myself in that group. I'm certainly not an Obama-bot.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Yes, a blind follower. Democratic Underground has been infested with them since 2008 (I was one of them, as I said). many of them are extremely aggressive verbal bullies with "you either support Obama or you are a Republican troll" attitudes.I would guess that a "bot" is by definition a blind follower.
I would guess that most Obama supporters today are quite aware of his failings, but see the alternative as much worse. I place myself in that group. I'm certainly not an Obama-bot.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
I would agree with you fully on that assessment of Obama supporters in general.I would guess that a "bot" is by definition a blind follower.
I would guess that most Obama supporters today are quite aware of his failings, but see the alternative as much worse. I place myself in that group. I'm certainly not an Obama-bot.
The view in a lot of countries outside the USA (Especially Europe and Oceania) is that Obama is quite sane in comparison to well every Republican running for the nomination. By Australian standards the political positions which the Republican nominees are advocating are pretty much restricted to minor Christian Conservative parties which get between 1-4% of the vote in elections. They are really that out there on the "loony right" from an Australian viewpoint.
If Australia was a US state it would have voted at least 80% for Obama in the 2008 election, if not more.
Last edited by Tristan; 01-02-2012 at 01:50 AM.
"The f****** place should be wiped off the face of the earth".
David Bowie on Los Angeles
OK, Tristan--but if Obama were an Australian could he become PM? I will be very interested in your answer.
We have had the sexual harassment argument here a number of times. I think quid pro quo harassment should be a serious crime. On the other hand, I never thought that what Clarence Thomas said to Anita Hill, based on her own account, which I totally believed, rose to the level of actionable harassment. He acted like a jerk but he did not try to exploit his position.
Lastly, on another election front, here is a terrific interview with Thomas Frank, who has written a new book, and who is saying many things similar to what I have been saying here. His take on the Tea Party and how Obama has blown it is very sophisticated. I already posted it on The Revolution Will Not be Televised but no one seems to be paying attention there.
Regarding Obamabots--I don't know anyone, literally, who feels genuinely enthusiastic about him at this point, and that might doom him. One of the most difficult decisions I'll have to make this year is whether to make phone calls on his behalf again. I just don't know how I would try to convince an unemployed Pennsylvanian to vote for him this year.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Really?
After asking her out and being rebuffed, he was alleged to have:
- Discuss pornography, including bestiality, rape and group sex
- Discussed, in graphic detail, his sexual prowess
- Commented on her appeaqnce and whether it made her sexually attractive; graphic references to her "physical attributes."
- Discussed his penis size and skill at performing oral sex
It is unclear whether quid pro quo harassment occurred here, although a strong case could be made that an inferred form of it did occur since he was her supervisor for some of her tenure. He had power and control over her employment and his actions created a potential threat to her status, even if none was acted upon. He absolutely exploited his position.
Forget quid pro quo harassement for a minute -- your definition of actionable sexual harassment is impossibly narrow. If you believe the allegations, then Thomas, at a minimum, created a hostile workplace environment.
You don't think all five of these elements were proven through her Senate testimony?
I read it with interest. Nodded my head throughout. What's there to say other than to lament opportunity lost?
Cenk Uygur's blog picks up where Frank's last comment left off.
I will be supporting and voting for Obama in November. There is no viable alternative for that office. At the same time, I will advocate for more progressive positions in other ways.I would guess that a "bot" is by definition a blind follower.
I would guess that most Obama supporters today are quite aware of his failings, but see the alternative as much worse. I place myself in that group. I'm certainly not an Obama-bot.
To begin with, I watched her Senate testimony and I do not remember everything that you listed above. I italicized a couple of things that I definitely do not remember. I also remember the infamous line, "Some one left a pubic hair on my coke."
None of this prevented them from maintaining a cordial relationship both during and after her service under his leadership and indeed she did not hesitate to ask him for a recommendation, which he supplied.
I would agree that he acted like a jerk, but I've seen lots of people act like jerks in lots of workplaces, and I am not convinced that acting like a jerk by making sexual references should necessarily be treated any differently. Make no mistake, as I said before, using your position to extort sex is a serious crime. But he didn't do that. So yes, I think current law has gone much too far, as have campus regulations, for instance those that claim that any sex with a drunken woman is rape because she couldn't have consented.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Uygur's article speaks my thoughts. I, and some others here, have been saying all along that it is the DIRTY ROTTEN SYSTEM.
I so agree with the following.
It isn't personal corruption. No one is stuffing money into freezers (at least not a lot of people are). It isn't that Senator Ben Nelson or Senator Orrin Hatch is a bad person. It's that we have built a system that is built on systemic corruption. The only way you can get elected is by doing the bidding of huge donors. And those donors can control the process entirely because of the unlimited amount of money they can spend.The average winning House candidate now spends $1.4 million per election. The average winning Senate candidate spends $10 million. Which average guy has that kind of money? You must raise the money from big donors - and then you are at their mercy. If you want to win, you need the money. If you want the money, you have to give them something in return.How often does money control the outcome? An overwhelming amount of the time. The candidate with more money wins 93% of the time on the House side and 94% of the time on the Senate side. It's game, set and match.So, of course, our representatives don't represent us, they represent the people who got them elected - the big donors.
If those who think that just voting will change things, I have a bridge to sell them. (and it is over the muddy Mississippi)
We haven't seen anything yet. I agree with the author, 2012 will see more dissenting from business as usual. People can discount and demonize the Occupy movement all they want but it won't stop the real power of the people; a growing revolution. And those who think that our democracy isn't all that bad, are living a sheltered life away from the reality of Americans who are suffering from this broken system.
This system cannot stand. It will not stand. I'm not saying that it falls in 2012. That is way too optimistic. But the battle is joined in 2012. There are now many constitutional amendments trying to address this problem. Those movements will only grow. And probably at surprising speed. Everything moves so much quicker now (just look at how many times and how quickly the Republican primaries have turned already). This movement is going to take the country by storm and Washington is going to be completely surprised by it. As usual, they will say "no one could have seen it coming."I'm telling you now, it's coming! People are starting to become furious that we have in effect lost our representative democracy. It's time for a revolution. Not a physical one, but a political one. A revolution that turns over the establishment's apple cart, challenges this corrupt system and brings back our democracy. Get ready for 2012.Join the Fight Here
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a
No kidding
Maybe maybe not, the campaign won't start for some time yet. Then we will see.That guy is so greasy that nothing sticks to him.
Why is this crazy? Paul is zero threat to Romney, he cannot win the GOP nomination because of his positions on foreign policy. So campaigning against Paul CANNOT be for Romney. It's quite obvious why Democrats might want to target Paul by bring up things like the newsletters and such. If you think about it a bit you will see why.This is what makes it so crazy that Democrats are out campaigning against Paul and indirectly for Romney, because every hit piece increases the odds that a Republican will take the house in 2013.
No kidding. My question is why is the GOP base, who are obviously not crazy about Romney going to nominate him?If Obama and Romney duke it out, everyone in big finance and big media knows the outcome: either way, the establishment wins. In that sense, CNN probably doesn't care about electing a Democrat half as much as they care about electing someone who will keep the status-quo
So would an alien invasion, which is more likely.A Ron Paul nomination introduces some modicum of doubt.
Paul is a staunch opponent of the American Empire, but America has always been an imperialist power. It was termed Manifest Destiny in the 19th century, but it wasn't really any different than what Imperial Russia had done a couple of centuries earlier (i.e. conquer less technically-sophisticated civilizations in their hinterland). In the 20th century we became a more recognizable imperialist power by acquiring a train of dependencies and satellites.
Americans have only known empire and have a great deal of difficulty coming to grasp with Paul's radical positions on imperialism. I would say it is impossible for traditionalists to do this. Hence he can be (and frequently is) labeled as a nut for uttering perfectly sensible-sounding foreign policy proposals
The more likely explanation for Paul's increased traction today is his views on recent foreign policy more closely jibe with observable reality than do the views of either party.It also goes to show the waning power of traditional media outlets. 5 or 10 years ago it was easy to ignore Ron Paul because most people got their news from the TV and AP.
Look at my own transformation. After two decades as a foreign policy realist my views on this issues have come to very strongly resemble Mr Paul's. He sounds exactly like me when he questions why are American troops still present in war theatres 50, or 60+ years after the wars ended? Had we applied Paul's opposition to American forces aboard to the situation in 1990, there would have been (1) no American troops in Saudi Arabia, (2) no Iraq embargo and no-fly zone, and as a result (1) bin Laden have remained in Saudi Arabia and never declared war on the US, (2) no 911 (3) no Afghanistan war (4) no Iraq war.
In other words, his policy would have worked to prevent tens of thousands of America war casualties and hundreds of thousands of others, as well as saving trillions of dollars.
Last edited by Mikebert; 01-02-2012 at 03:37 PM.
I can't see what you italicized since the software italicizes the whole quote. I also remember watching and listening to them. Maybe my memory is better! I have sourced all my items from the a transcript of the hearings:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/se...pt4/41-124.pdf
1. Discuss pornography, including bestiality, rape and group sex
2. Discussed, in graphic detail, his sexual prowess
3. Commented on her appeaqnce and whether it made her sexually attractive; graphic references to her "physical attributes."
4. Discussed his penis size and skill at performing oral sex
1. "After a brief discussions of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes."
2. "He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involving various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess."
3. "He commented on what I was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less sexually attractive."
4. "On other occasions, he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal, and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex."
That dog don't hunt, Professor.
The actual testimony is here, , and it does confirm most of what has been said, with one major exception--he did not accuse her of leaving a pubic hair on his coke. I had forgotten his discussion of bestiality in the pornography he watched.
I will not retract my last statement quoted above, however.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
That is the same link as mine.
I didn't mention the coke can/pubic hair as I don't think that falls within the scope of "hostile work environment."
