Dispatches from an alternate dimension

1)apparently, Obama is just like Mugabe; also, “immaculate” is now a verb, with so far indeterminable meaning

2)Telling your congregation who to vote for, vilifying politicians from the pulpit, or making public statements about which politicians shouldn’t receive communion? Totally non-partisan and not worthy of removing tax-exempt status from churches. Reporting on the lies of Fox News? pure evil, AKA “unlawful conduct” meant to “‘disrupt’ the commercial interests of News Corp”.

3)and from the “alternate dimension I wish we lived in” department, Pelosi claims Democrats won’t let Republicans fuck them over like that again. ha hahahah ha haaaa…. *weep*

36 comments on “Dispatches from an alternate dimension

  1. Franklin Percival says:

    t is difficult enough to get people to be rational in considering ‘imaginary friend’ religions, so unless we concentrate on educating people a great deal more than we do now I despair of a simple majority ever thinking critically about ‘socio-economic’ religions.

    Otherwise intelligent people appear quite content to carry on suspending their disbelief when being told lies by the ‘Great and Good’ who seek seek merely to distract and exploit them.

  2. Paul says:

    I like that the scary part about Obama’s birthday fundraiser is the speech. Not that after passing a huge austerity bill, the President had a few thousand bucks a plate dinner with the people that really set his agenda. That there’s some austerity.

    Pelosi claims Democrats won’t let Republicans fuck them over like that again

    It’s pretty much true, if you remove the “again”. Democrats in Congress at large didn’t get screwed, they got what they wanted out of the deal. Hell, they even get to put off their cut to Social Security and Medicare until after the next election. It was like Christmas for them. Their base gets screwed, but they don’t need to care about their base as long as they have Bachmann to point at and use as a club. Hell, at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if Bachmann was a liberal conspiracy to be able to serve their real masters and do what they really want in office and still hold the WH.

    I recognize it as pure immaturity, but I’d be tempted to vote for Bachmann over Obama next time around (although a good third party over Bachmann). The Dems have nobody to blame but themselves when they become unelectable because they no longer make any effort at appearing to support their base. If the country is going to go to hell, I’d rather it happen with an R at the top, so the moral isn’t “more trickle-down and Austrian economics would have fixed this”. And electing a wingnut might cause the other first world countries to grow some balls and call out the US when it violates the Geneva Conventions and sanctions and subsequently covers up acts worthy of trial in the Hague.

  3. David Marjanović says:

    Paul, your idea does have some appeal, but the US has nukes, and a wingnut is more likely to use them, as well as generally more likely to commit unfriendly acts.

    apparently, Obama is just like Mugabe

    In power while black.

    *KA-KROOM*
    (scroll down a bit on this page)

  4. David Marjanović says:

    Also, a moron like Bachmann would be played by China like a fiddle. Thanks, but… no, thanks.

  5. Paul says:

    Who needs to be “played by China”? Both parties want to use the Chinese for fearmongering, and will once they get tired of bombing brown people and wondering why “we’re your friends” doesn’t make anything better (with stuff like this coming to light weekly we’re basically the Martians from Mars Attacks). Bachmann getting “played by China” would likely be functionally undifferentiable than whatever we’d get under Obama. China’s too big to attack or even mess directly/openly with their interests, so either way we’re settling in for a long Cold Passive Aggressive Bitchfest. We’re already getting Chinese superhackers brought out whenever the Pentagon or the Air Force want more funds.

  6. Jadehawk says:

    sorry, for the moderation trigger, guys. FYI, i set it back to trigger at 3 links per post.

  7. Paul says:

    No worries, Jadehawk. We know this is a hobby site, and I know how touchy moderation controls can be. Incidentally, do you consider it better or worse that the Congressional Dems aren’t getting fucked over? Well, they are on their re-election chances, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it probably really wants to cut Social Security and Medicare and not raise their handlers’ taxes like a duck. The Dems are just posturing, pretending for their base that they’re being taken advantage of. They were apparently taking notes when Obama was claiming he was for the Public Option and people just needed to push hard enough for it to go in, well after he had promised insurance companies that it would not be in the final bill.

    generally more likely to commit unfriendly acts.

    After Obama, this is laughable. Wingnuts may be more open about their intentions to turn the Middle East into a sheet of glass so Jesus can come home for Armageddon, but Obama is far from a wingnut and we’re killing more non-white civilians by the day with no end in sight. Intent isn’t magic, and we can’t keep pretending that indifferently killing people is better or significantly different than killing them to further a religious agenda.

    I’m tempted to agree on the nuke point, but having known quite a few I think even wingnut rapture monkeys would hesitate if put in the position where they could actually launch them. It’s not like they get a special reward from Jesus if they start Armageddon; heaven is the same for all believers. Why risk making the wrong choice? I’d be more concerned about Neo-Cons dropping the bomb, and they’re just as heavily influencing the Dems now as they are the wingnuts.

  8. Jadehawk says:

    well, I’d really like to go back to no moderation at all, but I’ve had a few really vile trolls and quite frankly, I’ve no desire to deal with those at all.

    Anyway, I’ve always subscribed to the theory that the Democrats were simply spineless… but it may well be that they’re actually very good liars. It may well be that many Democrats (I wouldn’t say all; for example, I do think what the Wisconsin Senate Democrats were genuinely against union stripping; ) are also merely pursuing the agenda of their corporate overlords but using the language of progressivism to get leftwing voters, as a parallel to the Republican “Southern Strategy” of racism and culture war designed to get them rightwing voters.

    I don’t know. I don’t necessarily care anymore, either. In economic terms* the difference between president Obama and president Romney will be the speed at which the USA turns into a Banana Republic, nothing more. The difference between president Obama and president Bachmann OTOH is the difference between merely turning into a Banana Republic, and turning into a third world theocracy. Bachmann, like Huckabee, scares the living fuck outta me.

    - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
    *in social terms, where those don’t severely impact the sacred cows of neocon economics and neocolonialist foreign policy, the Democrats do some good work still: repeal of DADT, the Lilly Ledbetter act, etc. So it might still be worth voting for them for that reason; and to give oneself enough time to organize one’s emigration to a civilized country

  9. Jadehawk says:

    and I still want to know WTF “immaculated” means…

  10. David Marjanović says:

    Another difference between Romney on the one hand and Bachmann and Huckabee on the other: Romney is a Mormon. Plenty of evangelical fundies simply won’t vote for him, come literal hell or high water — that’s why he didn’t win the primaries last time, as far as I can tell.

  11. Paul says:

    he difference between president Obama and president Bachmann OTOH is the difference between merely turning into a Banana Republic, and turning into a third world theocracy. Bachmann, like Huckabee, scares the living fuck outta me.

    I used to work on the tv film crew for a major international televangelism program. Huckabee was a guest before the primaries for the Repubs. While at the time I didn’t have particular political interest, I remember thinking that he scared the crap out of me and that he seemed to be angling for a nomination. Even though the presidential running wasn’t mentioned at all.

    I don’t buy that the president will make or break us turning into a third world theocracy. If that’s where we’re going, who happens to be president is a symptom and not a causal factor. I’m not sold that that’s not where we’re going if Obama or Romney get elected.

    repeal of DADT

    Last I checked, that still hadn’t happened. Just saying. The groundwork was set to repeal it in the future, after “the president” certifies it won’t affect military puissance. This was set to happen no sooner than next year. Count me skeptical that it won’t be used as a bat to force more progressive votes, since the eevil repubs would never do that (even though Obama’s position on gay marriage is really no more liberal than Bushes was).

    and I still want to know WTF “immaculated” means…

    If I had to make up a meaning, I’d say it’s just an extension of the adjective immaculate. “Without sin”. He could be talking about how he’s been anointed the messiah by liberals. That would line up with previous characterizations. Obama was anointed as perfect, immaculated.

  12. It’s my feeling that ‘immaculated’ is a ‘Dubya’ type neologism. Aphasic (speech production) symptoms can follow Traumatic Brain Injury, though I don’t know whether such applies in either case.

  13. Jadehawk says:

    If that’s where we’re going, who happens to be president is a symptom and not a causal factor. I’m not sold that that’s not where we’re going if Obama or Romney get elected.

    well, I think that’s kind of how I meant it, just articulated it badly

    Last I checked, that still hadn’t happened.

    erm, DADT is toast. did you mean DOMA? http://goqnotes.com/11930/dadt-repeal-certified-doma-hearing-held/

  14. As to neologism, maybe it was motor gob’s brain conflating inauguration/induction and emasculation.

  15. Paul says:

    Apologies, I missed the certification taking place last month. My attention to national matters have been pretty hit or miss lately, due to a large case of failing to give a fuck due to the way our national body politic is heading.

    Still pissed off at how weak the process used to end DADT was. Obama was spineless to put it off for several months so that they could “certify that it wouldn’t harm force readiness”, and give them time to undergo a program inoculating the armed forces against the gay.

    Also noting that DADT isn’t toast until September 21st or so, as the article you linked notes there’s a 60 day waiting period after the July 22nd cert. People talking as if it’s over has resulted in several military members getting the boot while DADT is still on the books since they thought it was safe to “come out”, although it’s been a couple months since I heard of a specific case.

    As to the immaculated thing, I don’t think it was confusion. I think it was an attempt to portray the Democrats as religious towards their fearless leader, as that’s been right-wing bread and butter since he first started in the primaries. Rush probably thought it was actually a verb.

  16. Jadehawk says:

    As to the immaculated thing, I don’t think it was confusion. I think it was an attempt to portray the Democrats as religious towards their fearless leader, as that’s been right-wing bread and butter since he first started in the primaries. Rush probably thought it was actually a verb.

    I’m sure that’s true, I’d just really love to know what he thinks it meant. Though, I think the association with religion and with, as you said, being “anointed the messiah by liberals”. I guess “apotheosis” was too big and foreign a word

  17. Paul says:

    Wow. Talk about dispatches from another dimension. Obama’s 2012 campaign is going to be one big attack ad against Romney.

    “There’s a question of public character,” Axelrod said. “Are you principled, consistent — are you who you say you are? Can you be counted on?”

    That’s how they’re arguing against Romney (well, also by calling him “weird”). Obama’s administration, FFS, accusing someone else of being unprincipled, inconsistent, and undependable. Fuck it, I’m voting for whoever looks like they have the best chance to beat Obama. He’s a snake. While the competition may be as well, at least they’re not doing so while claiming to be part of my in-group, and when the inevitable crash comes it will be blamed on their ideas and not liberalism.

  18. David Marjanović says:

    Paul, if you vote for Bachmann or Huckabee, I’ll be sorely tempted to come over and strangle you with your own living, pulsating gut still attached to the mesentery.

    Of course, Obama will be dangerously stupid if he won’t use “it’s still the economy, stupid” and “the Reptilians won’t rest till they’ve destroyed the economy”. But he’s still less evil. There is no right wall at which he’s standing.

  19. Paul says:

    Obama will be dangerously stupid if he won’t use “it’s still the economy, stupid” and “the Reptilians won’t rest till they’ve destroyed the economy”

    Quite the opposite. If Obama wants to motivate his base, he can’t appeal to the economy (unless his position is that Dems will just blindly swallow whatever he says, which is possible — there is a sizeable contingent that will do just that). The Dems have been working just as hard to wreck it for normal people as Repubs have. DC Dems and Rethugs have infinitely more in common with each other than with normal citizens. Obama was the one who put Social Security on the chopping block so that Defense spending can go on unhindered by anything but tiny slap on the wrist cuts. Dems are the ones pushing to cut away our safety net further. Fuck them. They don’t stand for normal people anymore. I’ll vote for Dems in the Senate, but I’m not voting for another presidential Dem candidate unless it’s someone that actually holds and pushes liberal views. Of course, it’s a moot point since my state runs Blue enough (although oddly enough my county red enough) that unless Obama is caught pissing on a church, my vote doesn’t matter anyway. It’s symbolic, but fuck Obama and anyone who is still willing to let him pretend to be a Democrat.

  20. Jadehawk says:

    Fuck it, I’m voting for whoever looks like they have the best chance to beat Obama.

    I’m sorry, but that’s stupid. At least, if you’re going to protest-vote, make it blatantly obvious that it’s a protest vote.

  21. David Marjanović says:

    …because otherwise the Dims will only conclude that they still aren’t right-wing enough to be “mainstream”. After all, that’s what they concluded every single fucking time for a decade now.

  22. David Marjanović says:

    “It’s still the economy, stupid” as in “the Reptilians wanted to destroy the country rather than raise the taxes for the richest 5 %, and no, you don’t belong to the richest 5 %”.

    Dems are the ones pushing to cut away our safety net further.

    That’s true. The Reptilians, on the other hand, want to abolish the whole safety net at once. I prefer slash-and-burn agriculture over mountaintop removal.

    Really, I do.

    my state runs Blue enough

    Eh, then your vote for president really is irrelevant. The Electoral College is a great evil. You can keep your living guts. :-)

    Still, make your protest vote an obvious protest vote, or the Dims will misinterpret it again.

  23. Paul says:

    Really, I do.

    In general, I do as well. How about a hypothetical, so I at least feel like I am communicating my current emotion adequately:

    Slash-and-burn agriculture is resulting in people who think this is all well-and-good, the way things should be. Give it 100 years and there will be irreparable damage, but it’s coming gradually enough that when you point it out nobody gives a fuck. People that used to argue against it now say “well, it’s not that bad, our guy is doing it and we trust him”, so there are no mass-distributed voices against. By the end, your mountaintops are good and wrecked. All of them. All because the issue was compromised on until it compromised the environment past a recoverable point.

    Removing a mountaintop is a watershed moment where there is significant environmental impact, that can be pointed at as a very bad thing. There is no serious argument that what we’re doing is a bad thing. There is the potential for a serious pushback from the other direction. With enough impact, even moderates can recognize how seriously bad the policy is. You lose a couple mountaintops, but save many in the end.

    The former is everywhere with this administration. Everything bad is simply lightly moderated, altered until it’s just at the point where it’s still absolutely horrible but it’s changed enough that enough people don’t see it as horrible (see: black sites, as long as they’re not the ones previously covered by media; drone bombing escalating while scaling back on troops, so at least “real people” aren’t being put in danger while killing innocents; slowly pretending to cut “entitlements” while also raising taxes to claim “shared pain”, then slowly killing the tax increases). The Dims are working pretty damn hard to make evil socially acceptable. I’d rather have Rethugs actively breaking things and generally pissing everyone off who isn’t in their tax bracket. Change is never going to happen when we have Dims electing people that hate them just because they’re scared of the repubs, even though said hateful people are just going to commit the same class war, just less openly (and subsequently with less chance of being called on it, especially since said Dims are too scared to call them on it because OMG BUSH).

    Still, make your protest vote an obvious protest vote, or the Dims will misinterpret it again.

    It’s so cute that you think that. Legislation passed and not passed has no serious connection to their interpretation of what people want. They’re voting for whatever the corporations want. The only thinks that the Dims “interpretation” affects is the way they frame their actions; it doesn’t affect the actions themselves. Do you honestly think they think people want to line the pockets of insurance companies with no cost control? Do you think they think people want their Social Security that they’ve been paying into for decades to be cut, when the program itself had no structural issues? Do you think they think the lower-middle class want a higher incidence of death because they miss early detection of health issues because seeing their doctor on any sort of regular basis is a serious financial hardship? It’s a bad fucking joke to pretend that this is being done because Dims are “misinterpreting” what the people want. They don’t care. They will do the minimum amount of pandering they can to remain in office, then do whatever benefits corporations and the super-rich.

  24. David Marjanović says:

    Then all you can do is to take back the Democratic Party from within. No idea how to do that without obscenely rich financial backers (see Tea Party), but that’s all which could prevent the stupid leadership of the Democrats to continue. Voting Republican will just confirm them in their opinion that they’re still not right-wing enough to win elections; get them out of their jobs.

    Do you honestly think they think people want to

    I honestly think they think most people are about as ignorant as they are, ignorant enough to vote against their interests.

    I also don’t see how you get from “protest vote” to “legislation”. Maybe I need to explain what a protest vote is? Over here, if you’re fed up with the governing coalition, you vote for some party that is radical but has little chance of actually ending up in power (at least this time), like the xenophobes or the Greens. This sends both of the governing parties the message that they’ll loose power the next time if they keep going the way they have been. That’s not easily even applicable to the USA, where third parties are closer to 0.5 % than to 5 % of the vote.

  25. David Marjanović says:

    ignorant enough to vote against their interests

    and thus exploitable.

  26. Paul says:

    ignorant enough to vote against their interests and thus exploitable.

    Please keep in mind what I was replying to. You’re now talking about voters. I was replying to you making a statement about legislators:

    Still, make your protest vote an obvious protest vote, or the Dims will misinterpret it again.

    Your implication is that the legislative shenanigans that have been going on for the last few years were due to Dims misinterpreting the will of the people. I’m just pointing out that, in the words of Jadehawk, “I’m sorry, but that’s stupid”.

    Maybe I need to explain what a protest vote is?

    When did I say I was making a protest vote? The most clear statement I said was that “I’m not voting for Obama”. That doesn’t magically translate to “protest vote”, and you don’t get to explain to me what I’m doing based on a term I never used. A vote for Repubs (at least, if I wasn’t in a solid blue state) is a vote with a purpose. The only time the Dims pretend to have a spine or stand for anything approaching moral is when a Republican president is in office. It may be disingenuous, but at least then there are public voices speaking for what is right (ending indefinite detention without charges, not deciding to bomb whichever country we feel like while pretending we’re not “at war” because we’re just bombing weddings with robots, pointing out the danger of an imperial presidency). With a Dem president, everyone pointing out how dangerous our actions are just gets told to shut up because it’s “our sonofabitch” up there and you don’t want “one of them” in charge. I’d rather have “one of them” in charge if it means pointing out what is right actually gains some traction in progressive circles, instead of it getting shouted down because it might hurt our guy at the top.

    That’s not easily even applicable to the USA, where third parties are closer to 0.5 % than to 5 % of the vote.

    Why would you even type all the previous parts of this paragraph if this is the end and you recognize your idea of a protest vote only matters with proportional representation? It just turns the previous text into a whole lot of inapplicable “herp derp”. Even if they were at 5% instead of 0.5%, it wouldn’t matter with FPTP.

  27. David Marjanović says:

    I do seem to have argued myself into a circle here… but no, I don’t think politicians are necessarily less clueless than their voters.

    The only time the Dims pretend to have a spine or stand for anything approaching moral is when a Republican president is in office.

    O.o

    That’s not the impression I got of 2001 – 2008. I remember lots of “bipartisanship”, “national unity”, “get over it” (the stolen election, that is), “stop crying in your teacups” (allegedly actual quote by Kerry about the stolen election of 2000), “constructive work for America”, “we take the moral high ground, unlike the Reptilians who simply oppose anything and everything when they’re in opposition”, and so on.

    I also remember the vote to let Fearless Flightsuit decide whether to declare war on Iraq, the vote for the Patriot Act…

    When did I say I was making a protest vote?

    You said you wanted to tell the Dims they’re dim by ostentatiously not voting for them anymore. That’s called a protest vote. What have I overlooked?

    With a Dem president, everyone pointing out how dangerous our actions are just gets told to shut up

    while with a Reptilian president, everyone pointing that out gets told to shut up and be executed for treason, where “treason” was interpreted as “criticizing the President in wartime”. I remember that quite vividly.

    it wouldn’t matter with FPTP

    It could. That’s exactly what the Nader voters of 2000 keep being accused of (rightly or wrongly).

  28. johannes says:

    And electing a wingnut might cause the other first world countries to grow some balls and call out the US when it violates the Geneva Conventions and sanctions and subsequently covers up acts worthy of trial in the Hague.

    Even if the corpse of Warren Gamaliel Harding would be elected president, China or Germany would not risk a serious economic, leave alone military, confrontation with the US to save the Burmese Junta or to keep Alawites on top of the Apartheid foodchain in Syria*. Compradores are disposable by nature, remember what happened to Diem or Trujillo. When they have outlived their usefulness, they are toast. Eon can steal more from the denizens of those American states where it runs (sort of) the power lines than it can steal from Syrians who own next to nothing, hence, when push comes to shove, they will sacrifice Gemma and fetus doc Assad to safeguard their interests in the US.

    *and why should this be considered desirable in the first place? Conflict between rival imperial powers will only mean more brown people killed as pawns in this struggle :-(

  29. Paul says:

    That’s not the impression I got of 2001 – 2008. I remember lots of “bipartisanship”, “national unity”, “get over it” (the stolen election, that is), “stop crying in your teacups” (allegedly actual quote by Kerry about the stolen election of 2000), “constructive work for America”, “we take the moral high ground, unlike the Reptilians who simply oppose anything and everything when they’re in opposition”, and so on.

    While I’ll admit I muddied the water, I’m referring more to the press and their seriously challenging when the Executive does bad things. The liberal media (the actual liberal parts, not the wingnut usage) right now are afraid to point out any real issues because it will hurt our guy. Contrast with when warrantless wiretapping mattered, the president refusing to close Gitmo being a bad thing, speaking out about how “you’re with us or against us” when it comes to unilaterally bombing other countries is a bad thing. Now that Obama is in office, the only people on the left side of the spectrum speaking out about these things are fringe-ish people like Greenwald. Which means there are no voices protesting these things anymore, since they might hurt our guy. The Dims in office did, of course, say the things you’re quoting.

    I also remember the vote to let Fearless Flightsuit decide whether to declare war on Iraq, the vote for the Patriot Act…

    And recall how there were at least some voices in the liberal media framing this as a bad thing? Good luck finding that now. It used to be common, now you’re lucky if Maddow says something that might cause Fearless Leader to worry if more people watched her show.

    You said you wanted to tell the Dims they’re dim by ostentatiously not voting for them anymore.

    Since when is posting that I’m not voting for them on a low-traffic blog (no offense, Jade, and I wish you had more traffic) “ostentatiously not voting for them”? I’m not telling them they’re Dim, I’m voting for the other guy so at least portions of the Fourth Estate behave as such and actually challenge the President on serious things. Again, when Repubs are in office the liberal media actually takes the Fourth Estate stuff semi-seriously (at least as concerns the Executive, the Legislative is still corrupt as hell of course). When Dims are in office, the liberal media takes a nap and the conservative media just launches insane attacks and shifts the Overton Window farther to the right. I honestly think there’s a serious argument to be made that a Liberal president shifts the overall political Overton Window further to the right than a Conservative president due to these effects, and we can’t afford to go any further right in viewpoint as a society. Warrantless wiretapping, imprisoning without charge, and committing to not-war by robots was never as in-vogue as when our guy did it.

    everyone pointing that out gets told to shut up and be executed for treason, where “treason” was interpreted as “criticizing the President in wartime”. I remember that quite vividly.

    Can you point to me where the execution took place? The Dims are playing the “criticizing the President in wartime” shit too, with Hillary Clinton saying you’re either fully supportive of how the government is behaving in Libya or you’re a Gadaffi-lover. And the difference is, under the Reptilians as you say it was the right trying to get the left to shut up. Now we have the left telling the left to shut up, while the right just jabbers on with their own insanity. This means there’s no voice pointing out the wrongs, even if that voice is being told to shut up by those in power. I’ll take the situation where we at least discuss our wrongs, instead of pretending they don’t exist out of fear of the other party. Fear that results in doing the same thing they would, but pretending it’s different so we get to stay in office, even if it means abandoning any previous ideological stances or platforms.

    It could. That’s exactly what the Nader voters of 2000 keep being accused of (rightly or wrongly).

    Erm, I didn’t say they couldn’t result in the other side losing. I’m saying the votes are meaningless as a means of pushing the third party into (positive) recognition. You said (and I was responding to:)

    This sends both of the governing parties the message that they’ll loose power the next time if they keep going the way they have been.

    There is no way that a third party can make “both of the governing parties” have any sort of fear of losing power in a FPTP system with two entrenched parties. None.

    and why should this be considered desirable in the first place?

    Why would one desire International Law and Treaties be respected and enforced if necessary? I’m not quite sure how to answer that…

  30. johannes says:

    Why would one desire International Law and Treaties be respected and enforced if necessary? I’m not quite sure how to answer that…

    Because what the German elites mean when they speak of “International Law” is very different from International Law as actually practised by lawyers?

    http://isf-freiburg.org/verlag/rezensionen/pdf/scheit-wahn.weltsouveraen_rez-dumbadze.pdf

  31. David Marjanović says:

    This will be difficult to write because the text of published comments here (not on other WordPress-running blogs!) cannot be highlighted in IE.

    I didn’t know H. Clinton now pulls the “don’t criticize the President in wartime” crap too.

    The stuff about “both of the governing parties” was about the situation in those European countries where there actually are two governing parties at the same time, so that a protest vote has to be a vote for a third party, some of which are large enough that people actually notice when their share of the vote increases by 1/3.

    China or Germany would not risk

    That’s most likely correct.

    remember what happened to Diem or Trujillo

    Or Saddam.

    fetus doc

    :-D

    Who’s Gemma?

    The liberal media (the actual liberal parts, not the wingnut usage)

    How many people read them anyway? To what extent do the MSM pick up their breaking news? Do the DLC so much as read HuffPo or Daily Kos?

    Since when is [...] “ostentatiously not voting for them”?

    Commenting about it here isn’t ostentatious, sorry about the misunderstanding. Simply not voting for them (staying at home or voting for another party) is ostentatious if done in large enough numbers — as you clearly hope will happen.

    When Dims are in office, [...] the conservative media just launches insane attacks and shifts the Overton Window farther to the right.

    That’s exactly what happened in the years of Captain Unelected. It may not have gotten better, but it definitely hasn’t gotten worse.

    Can you point to me where the execution took place?

    I wrote people were “told to shut up and [told to] be executed”. Just the usual freeping murder fantasies.

  32. johannes says:

    Who’s Gemma?

    Asma al Assad’s nickname among her sloan ranger friends. To bad the Vogue puff piece on her is offline, it was priceless, especially the SSNP operatives doing the nativity play. Try to imagine this guys http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sYEiyvy4KJU dressed as Christmas elves… :-D

  33. Paul says:

    I didn’t know H. Clinton now pulls the “don’t criticize the President in wartime” crap too.

    She’s definitely not the only one, but was an easy example. Yes, our Democratic Secretary of State:

    But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

    How many people read them anyway? To what extent do the MSM pick up their breaking news? Do the DLC so much as read HuffPo or Daily Kos?

    I was thinking of other liberalish places like MSNBC (despite Scarborough) as well. And it’s not just about MSM exposure. The “liberal” opinion-makers and pundits moving to the right and becoming chickenhawks influences party direction as a whole significantly even in the absence of heavy MSM exposure.

    That’s exactly what happened in the years of Captain Unelected. It may not have gotten better, but it definitely hasn’t gotten worse.

    Are you listening? During the years of Captain Unelected, warrant-less wiretapping was a bad thing and called such by the left. As were black prisons, like the one in Somalia picking up some of the Gitmo slack. As were extensions and increases in scope of military action in Iraq. As was the war on whistleblowers who were not endangering National Security, only pointing out waste (see: Drake). These things have become acceptable, now, with the left not wanting to make an issue of them because it will hurt our guy at the top. How the hell is this “not getting worse”? I get that you’re not in the US, so you don’t necessarily pay close attention to these things. All you see is the lack of the Chimp. But this represents a huge fucking Overton shift to the right, more than we ever saw under Captain Unelected.

  34. David Marjanović says:

    Try to imagine this guys http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sYEiyvy4KJU dressed as Christmas elves… :-D

    X-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

    During the years of Captain Unelected, warrant-less wiretapping was a bad thing and called such by the left.

    And what did actually happen?

    *crickets chirping*

    Intent isn’t magic.

    These things have become acceptable, now

    Sadly, they were acceptable to the public opinion when the Chimp introduced them.

  35. Paul says:

    And what did actually happen?

    *crickets chirping*

    Obama ran on a platform saying they needed to be cut back. There weren’t crickets. It got him elected. Then he simply ignored said positions he took when he was a candidate.

    “Acceptable” and “cause riots in the streets” are not the same thing. And they weren’t acceptable, which is why we elected a politician who spoke out against many of the civil liberties abuses. His continuing them, and the left subsequently losing their spines and their voices, is where the shift in public opinion (at least among the left) occurred. It was against before he was in office, and either neutral or for it after.

    If you want to pretend that’s not a rightward shift in opinion, greater than we saw under Chimp, fine. But I have no interest in touching on these issues with you in the future, if you’re willing to so delude yourself and other commenters. I’m sad now.

  36. David Marjanović says:

    Obama ran on a platform saying they needed to be cut back. There weren’t crickets. It got him elected.

    Are you sure this was so important in getting him elected? (I mean, I hope it was, but…) Where can I find poll data?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s