« Words speak louder than actions | Main | Your indelible mental image for the day »

Saturday, May 07, 2011

Comments

You warned me but I looked anyway. Democratic dittoheads indeed.
The only thing of value there is the blogroll - it's like the google maps of special.

This is kind of unfair...to freepers and dittoheads.

Really, at least they joke about Bradley Manning because they disagree with what he did and not just because he makes their guy look bad.

Actually I've often thought that more than half seriously. Right-wingers may say some incredibly vile stuff and base it on a twisted value system, but at least they have a value system, whereas Democrats like these are just pure partisans whose "beliefs" are entirely dependent on who's calling the shots (not that the right is free of that by a long shot, of course, but I do think it's more pronounced among these kinds of Democrats). Empty shells of self-interest and self-regard. It's hard to say which is worse.

And yeah, the Manning bit is spectacularly putrid. And I'm sure more than a few of them would sing the praises of Daniel Ellsberg--in fact I've been meaning to collect a few of the many articles I've seen where professed liberals like this go through yoga-like contortions trying to square their admiration for Ellsberg with their acceptance or even endorsement of what the Obama administration is doing to Manning. It's not often you get such a perfect litmus test for partisan hypocrisy.

Bradley Manning is the Natalee Holloway of imprisoned Americans. None of you give a fuck about any of the other thousands of people being held under inhumane conditions in American prisons. And some of them, unlike Manning, are innocent.

Lol are you in the right place? Yeah good luck getting your Dem buddies to talk about the prison-industrial complex or the odiousness of the war on drugs. I hear Obama has some really daring critiques of the prison system he is waiting to unveil until after he wins reelection.

Also I'm glad you have dispensed with trivialities such as due process like your dear leader.

"Dear Leader!" Everybody drink!

Due process at last glance did not include releasing Bradalee Holloway from facing charges of espionage, which of course he NEVER WOULD under a Kucinich presidency. ;^}

You're really in the wrong place. "More better democrats to deal with all your pressing dilemmas of state and empire" is that way.

Democrats like these pull out the race card (and others) as predictably and reflexively as Hannity zombies bleat about anti-Americanism--for the same reasons, and with just as little cause or justification. It's funny how oblivious they are to the fact that they draw from the same playbook. I do at least appreciate them illustrating the point, though.

If whitey had any genuine concern for "thousands of people being held under inhumane conditions in American prisons" s/he'd be absolutely outraged about Clinton's record on crime, punishment and incarceration. But it's nothing more than posturing, of course--just a bludgeon to pick up when it's useful to attack whoever's currently criticizing the Party, and to discard again when it's time to elect yet another law-and-order/drug war Democrat.

And yeah, ergo, I think our visitors are in such a tizzy because they can't figure out which pigeonhole to use, since they can't imagine having principles that are independent of any political party.

absolutely outraged about Clinton's record on crime, punishment and incarceration
Oh, but we are ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGED! IMPEACH BILL CLINTON!

There. I feel so much better than I would if I were part of a party and actually did something.

Hey, you know who else doesn't care about "any of the other thousands of people being held under inhumane conditions in American prisons"? That Barack Obama guy, who hasn't pardoned a single fucking one of them.

I was unaware that pasting a bureaucratic face onto the empire qualified as doing something. The things I learn every day.

Only 547 shopping days left, and people like Caruso and Floyd are going to be a hard sell. Instead of hectoring them, I'd suggest trying to replace their negative thoughts with happy thoughts.

Next time they start droning on about eviscerated wedding parties and dead children, start some chants of Om. Maybe incorporate the words student loan reform into the chant. Or perhaps a bubbly Broadway show tune would bring them around. "I'm going to wash that blood right out of my hair." Think of it as Smiles for Obama.

Mx. BumpItMcCarthy:

I'm confused. Are you stating that being part of the democratic party (which part?) is necessary to actually doing things? Not being a part of the democratic party hasn't stooped me from cooking at a soup kitchen, or volunteering as an EMT, or getting shot by a rubber bullet for protesting the G-20. In fact not being part of the democratic party helped me to do these things (at-least the last one) as don't relay on someone else to fulfill my desire to do good.

It is true that I haven't done anything meaningful myself to combat the treatment of prisoners but, in my defense, I am limited in the number of activities in which I can engage. I have friends who have done something meaningful on this and I've provided them with general personal support if that helps any? I do admit to going to a rally on Quantico in support of pvt. Manning but that was mostly because I was in the right place at the right time: I was camping with friends in nearby Prince William Forest and they wanted to go and I saw no problem tagging along (though protesting on a military base was creepy). I do know that supporting the democratic party in general wouldn't do anything meaningful to support the prison population. The fact that the treatment of felons is abysmal everywhere in the US is evidence enough as some states are essentially one in a half party states. There may be individual democrats who do something meaningful here and more power to them in this matter.

It seams to me that supporting the democratic party in general and President Obama in particular would be supporting things I think are bad. I consider giving the power of taxation to corporations through bail out authority is regressive, to support the credit markets as the worked for the last thirty years is regressive, to support increases in military spending and the expansion of military activities is regressive, to support spending freezes and cuts as austerity measures is regressive, and to support regressive taxation to be regressive. Instead I chose to look at US history and offer my support to alternatives that actually advocate roughly the things I do which puts pressure on the major parties to change. Constantly voting for them much less being a part of them does not offer incentives for them to change. It may be a long term strategy but I am reminded of the axiom that, in the end, those with a long term outlook are more successful then those with a short term outlook.

If you support the democratic party and its regressive policies then I respect you. More power to you but it is not necessary to be part of a larger party structure to do good work. It can in fact help not to be so in some way as one need not be limited to activities officially supported or sanctioned by the party.

I consider giving the power of taxation to corporations through bail out authority is regressive, to support the credit markets as the worked for the last thirty years is regressive, to support increases in military spending and the expansion of military activities is regressive, to support spending freezes and cuts as austerity measures is regressive, and to support regressive taxation to be regressive.
1. Your various volunteering activities and protests are commendable, and in the case of the soup kitchen, actually provided a tangible benefit to someone in need. Now wouldn't it be nice if those soup kitchens didn't to deal with an influx of new clients who've had their unemployment cut off, as the Florida legislature is about to do? And as Republicans tried to do last year? The furor over what the rich were getting obscured what the people on the lower end of the spectrum would lose if the bill were killed--a common problem on the left. Privilege is being able to hold onto your principles, no matter how much they cost people who are less well-off.
2. A long-term outlook is all very well, but to answer with an axiom of my own, when you're bleeding to death, you don't complain if the tourniquet is dirty. I view the Democratic party as that tourniquet, and it would be helpful if some people on the left remembered those people over there -->>>> who are wielding the ax.

@Happy Jack: I do not support Obama's policy in Afghanistan. ***GASP!!!****
I am so sorry he chose to begin that war! Why didn't he follow the peaceful example of President Nader?

The Dems will stop the bleeding? Tell that to all those HAMP participants or the millions of unemployed (one of the great ironies has been the Dems' advertisement about how the House Republicans haven't passed a jobs bill, where the hell was the Dems' jobs bill when they controlled both houses and the WH? Answer: nowhere).

If whitey had any genuine concern for "thousands of people being held under inhumane conditions in American prisons" s/he'd be absolutely outraged about Clinton's record on crime, punishment and incarceration.

I said nothing about Clinton or any other Democrat in my comment. Try again. But thank you for admitting that there are other prisoners worthy of our concerns besides Bradalee Holloway. Now maybe you can explain why he's being treated like the only prisoner that we should give a damn about or what's so uniquely horrible about his treatment that he's the subject of so much outrage while other men are left invisible despite being treated much worse.

Hey, you know who else doesn't care about "any of the other thousands of people being held under inhumane conditions in American prisons"? That Barack Obama guy, who hasn't pardoned a single fucking one of them.

I didn't say anything about Obama in my comment but thank you for acknowledging that he's not the only one not concerned about a single fucking one of them.

I didn't say anything about Obama in my comment

And that's just the thing: you'd rather spend your time berating critics of the Democrats, based on the bullshit premise that caring about Manning and caring about the rest of the nation's unjustly imprisoned are mutually exclusive, than critiquing the actual politicians -- people like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton -- responsible for the fact 2.3 million Americans are behind bars. Joe Biden's personally responsible for authoring some of the nation's most draconian drug laws, but no, let's attack John Caruso.

I suggest you get your priorities straight.

The Democrats aren't the tourniquet, they're another guy with another ax. The critical difference is that you help this one keep chopping rather than opposing them--in no small part by attacking anyone who criticizes them.

On Manning: as Charles said, it's ridiculous to pretend there's anything mutually exclusive between caring about Manning and caring about the rest of the massive prison population (especially when you're running interference for the party whose policies put so many of them there). If people like "whitey" had the slightest genuine concern about the prison population, they'd be ecstatic that one of its number was getting this much attention. They'd be using it to highlight prison issues--not carping about Manning's melanin count (the fact that he's gay apparently not giving him enough minority status to qualify for their concern) and doing everything they can to deflect attention from what the Obama administration is doing to him.

But of course Manning isn't just any prisoner: he's a whistleblower and a political prisoner. He's being treated the way he's being treated specifically as a warning for anyone else who'd think of following his example. People who care about political prisoners and whistleblowers understand that Manning is a symbol, and that that in itself makes it important to fight for him.

Obama understands that too; that's exactly why his administration is doing what it's doing to him. And if Manning had only had the good fortune to be thrown into the gulag 3 years ago and treated exactly the same way by George Bush, people like whitey would be shouting to the rafters about him--not mocking him, and attacking anyone who criticizes the Obama administration over his treatment.

Which makes it crystal clear how much they care not just about the "thousands of people being held under inhumane conditions in American prisons", but about anything else that comes into conflict with their partisan loyalties.

Privilege is being able to hold onto your principles, no matter how much they cost people who are less well-off.

Funny how this doesn't apply beyond our shores. Like it's okay to endorse the purportedly altruistic half of the factional duopoly no matter how many innocents we murder abroad. At what point does this weigh into your calculations? Or is lesser evilism the extent of your argument? It might make sense if the Ds weren't willing partners in the austerity programme you rightly decry.

I am so sorry he chose to begin that war! Why didn't he follow the peaceful example of President Nader?

Ah yes, Darth Nader. Where would we be had he not denied the presidency to Gore in 2000? As if the most militarist dem ticket of the modern era would have even pretended to resist the drumbeat to war in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Given how easy it was to gin up liberal support for warmaking in Kosovo and Libya when dressed with multilateral humanitarian justification, I imagine they would have tacked the same path with even wider support than Bush.

Darth Nader exactly. We have some rueful ex-Naderites at our place. There are a few who are honest enough with themselves to admit what fauxgressives contemplating repeating the whole disastrous sequence won't: their "protest" votes threw the 2000 election (with help from SCOTUS, an entity fauxgressives forget about because it's inconvenient to think about Obama's recent appointees). Without them, the country wouldn't have gone to Bush.

And just as Teabaggers incorrectly believe that resenting being called racists is itself a refutation of the accusation of racism, proclaming contempt for the widespread belief that Nader made it possible for Bush to win in no way refutes the very good case that he did exactly that. But I wasn't referring so much to the whole dismal 2000 fiasco, as to the progressive presidents whose examples Obama might follow. Look at them all!

Why,whatever is this cricket sound?

As for your imaginings, if you really think the country would have been the same under Gore as Bush, I can't help you. But as long as we're using imagination as a valid premise, I might as well imagine Gore would have continued Clinton's policy of monitoring Bin Laden, read that Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within United States," and that 9/11 might not have happened at all. Hey, at least I have some back-up for it: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

Now back to cavorting with my Special friends! We don't feel Special, but then, being despised by Fellow Obama Fellator (nice homophobic nym, btw!) is such a common distinction that it leaves hardly any non-special people, besides the ones right on this here blog.

Not only are you special liberals (even if you don't understand what it means), you're Family Guy liberals as well:

Molly Ringwald: Hey, did you guys hear on the news about President Gore hunting down and killing Osama Bin Laden with his bare hands? [...]
Peter: With President Gore's Universal Health Care, people are living much longer these days.
Brian: And with Zero Tolerance gun control and a strong, well-funded educational system, there's no street crime.

Which is a comforting fantasy, but there's no reason to believe anything but that Gore and Lieberman would have continued doing what Clinton and Gore had been doing for the past eight years--especially since that's exactly what Gore said he'd do during the campaign.

And Gore wouldn't have had to resist any drumbeat to war in Iraq since the Clinton administration was at war with Iraq for eight years, racking up a death toll on a par with Bush's (not to mention constant attacks in the no-fly zones and other airstrikes). And all the touching concern for Iraqi civilians that Democrats suddenly started feeling when Bush was killing them was nowhere to be found--just like their concern for Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemenis et al (but not Libyans, of course) has vanished without a trace now that Obama's in the White House.

Lol. Did you read Clarke's recommendations? Instead of using 9/11 as pretext to institute a policy of imperial warmongering counterterrorism in Afghanistan (who we were already drone bombing), we could have just gone ahead and dispensed with the pretext. And yes, we already were at war with Iraq as well. Whether the bombings/sanctions regime would have morphed into full-scale occupation, well I don't suppose the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which called for regime change was relevant at all?

And this counterfactual President Gore is supposed to be better than Bush how?

Mx. BumpItMcCarthy:

I'm glad that I misunderstood you. We are in agreement that belonging to a political party is not a prerequisite to taking useful actions.

I do want to echo some of what some others have said here. To use your analogy, if someone cuts off my arm then puts on a dirty tourniquet, I hope I would accept the tourniquet but I am sure that I would remain quite upset with the person and not offer him or her my support. The poor in this nation needs an economy that works for them. The stated goals of President Obama's economic policy is to get the economy working in the way it functioned prior to this depression with minor adjustments. No time in the past thirty years did the economy function well for wage earners and others in the lowest 50th percentile if income earners. Offering some meaningful but minor support while working against someone in pain's best interests is better then not offering the support but it doesn't excuse or make up for the harm that democratic policy is doing to my former clients and others. In giving perks to the wealthy, US policy is making worse the situation than the good it is in providing immediate aid.

It's not that I don't think the democratic party in general isn't good enough: I think it's bad. It could be worse, as anything can, but I refuse to support something that is bad. I don't do this because of pride but I do so because of strategic thought. By holding out my support for something good, I incentivize that good. By supporting the best of bad options, I am incentivizing something bad. Sometimes the better of bad choices does have to be made but history has shown that in voting it does not. Most of the progressive work done by the democrats in US history, has occurred when the democratic party was under threat of loosing votes to something further to the left. I am doing my part to put the pressure on the democratic by voting for options further to the left then a conservative option.

The Clinton administration did more harm then good. NAFTA, GATT, welfare reform, the HMO system, a decade long war against Iraq, military interventions in Somalia and the Balkans amongst others, the administration's support of Israel, World Bank and IMF policy, spending cuts, unregulated stock market, and other policies are bad policies. There may have been some comparatively small good policies but they're countered by the bad ones much less fall short of making up for them. With Gore pledging four more years of Clinton, there is only one person who cost Al Gore the election: Al Gore. Instead of sticking to a long term strategy, most of Nader voters abandoned it because of slick propaganda about the lesser of two evils. Had they stuck to a long term strategy, there is a chance that the Obama that was elected in 2008 would actually be reforming the economy to some degree instead of supporting the same regressive system that has been strengthened ever since the Ford administration.

You asked for progressive Presidents that Obama might look for to inspiration. Richard Nixon was a more liberal President then Obama is today. While every President has blood on his hands, there are certainly plenty of Presidents more progressive then President Obama.

What's amazing to me about that site is the enthusiastic racism. I mean, I know many of these fake liberals are bigots, but I don't usually see it in person much (for pretty straightforward social reasons). Watching a bunch of well-off white assholes suck their own dicks about how awesome they are because they voted for a black man is easily more nauseating than long-microwaved mayonaisse.

Let me break it down for these pieces of shit. Your token vote for the black guy makes you a far, far greater bigot than any of the good ol' boys I ever had to deal with. Obama has done absolutely wretched things to blacks since in office -- which isn't a shock, since his predecessors had no problem doing wretched things to whites -- and your Kiplingesque smugness is worthy of the most self-aggradizing pro-confederate shitstain to ever claim that slavery was ultimately a boon to slaves. You're wastes of flesh when you're republicans, and you're wastes of flesh when you're democrats.

And, frankly, you make white people look bad.

Posted by: Heckuva job, whitey! | Sunday, May 08, 2011 at 02:20 PM

Bradley Manning is the Natalee Holloway of imprisoned Americans. None of you give a fuck about any of the other thousands of people being held under inhumane conditions in American prisons. And some of them, unlike Manning, are innocent.

Are you fucking kidding me? A rightwing bait-and-switch? Here? Some of us deal with innocent prisoners on a fairly regular basis, so you can take your pro-torture stance and shove back where your comment came from.

And Manning is innocent. The laws that condemn him are themselves illegal. The U.S. has a grand history of writing laws that contradict the constitution.

Posted by: John Caruso | Sunday, May 08, 2011 at 12:13 PM

And I'm sure more than a few of them would sing the praises of Daniel Ellsberg--in fact I've been meaning to collect a few of the many articles I've seen where professed liberals like this go through yoga-like contortions trying to square their admiration for Ellsberg with their acceptance or even endorsement of what the Obama administration is doing to Manning.

Pretty sure Greenwald did that awhile back.

Posted by: BumpItMcCarthy | Monday, May 09, 2011 at 01:37 PM

And just as Teabaggers incorrectly believe that resenting being called racists is itself a refutation of the accusation of racism, proclaming contempt for the widespread belief that Nader made it possible for Bush to win in no way refutes the very good case that he did exactly that.

Bullshit.

And racist.

Bigots in Florida denied thousands of black people the right to vote. THAT'S what threw the election for Bush. And your boys in the Democratic party played right along with it.

You're blaming Nader and, in doing so, discounting the tens of thousands of minorities whose votes are ignored every year in this country. Much like the bigots of the early industrial era, you're invoking the notion that in order to count for anything, you need a specific level of melanin or less. Thus, Bush's election has to be Nader's fault -- he's the only one with the right skin tone. It couldn't be the electoral fraud of Harris et. al.

Why,whatever is this cricket sound?

That would be you talking out of your ass. Your lies were actually refuted before the election -- the electoral fraud in Florida was a news item before anyone even went to the polls, though mainstream press in the states refused to comment on the story for the most part.

The idea that you're superior to the teabaggers in any way is such a self-indulgent example of white privilege I'm amazed the cognitive dissonance doesn't actually cause you migraines.

Are we STILL seriously claiming that Nader "cost" Gore the 2000 election?

So...

... you believe the Republicans' numbers on the election were completely accurate? Do you actually believe

... you think everyone who voted for Nader would have still voted if forced to vote for Gore or no one?

... you don't care to mention that the Republicans claim Bush won FL by less than 600 votes, yet exit polling indicates that over 200,000 registered Florida Democrats - over 10% of them - voted for Bush. Maybe you should focus more energy on trying to get Democrats to vote Democrat.

... you might want to take that that Gore lost every single southern state including his own.

The less said about Gore himself the better. This is a man who owns a tobacco farm and oil stock and then campaigns "against" carbon emissions and tobacco farming! Ha! This is the same Gore who held out back in '91 for a prime time TV spotlight in which to cast a potential swing vote to attack Iraq the first time. He's a douchebag of the first order, and if you showed me video of him being Satan's fluffer for bags of pennies I'd be the opposite of surprised.

It's funny how "being a good liberal" means unquestioningly believing John Caruso's crazy bullshit. Let's see: dogma that is not to be questioned, purity tests, misogynistic attacks against women bloggers, basically asserting anyone who's not a white man is too biased to see Obama for what he is, turning even minor criticism of the echo chamber into a massive assault on our values, etc, etc.

And you people call yourselves liberals? Sounds more like an ur-fascist death cult to me. I write one critical comment on your blog and you go to Defcon 5? (And go post a graphic, monumentally unfunny homophobic comment on Rumproast?)

You can't tolerate any dissent at all? It's funny how much of your argument boils down to, "shut up, a white man is speaking!"

If you all aren't smart enough to understand it's possible to decide, on the whole, Obama has done more good than harm, I don't know how to explain it to you. You probably bitch when your favorite baseball player hits .350. Anything less than hitting 1.000 means that a player is the worst player on earth and doesn't really love the game of baseball. Never mind that nobody's hit 1.000 before. It's horseshit.

If a lifelong gay narwhal hugging Democrat like me is the biggest boogeyman you can scare up, you don't get out of the house much. If you think that a couple of mocking comments by me constitute a full-fledged invasion, you live in a sad little echo chamber. If you can't take even the slightest logical criticism of your beliefs, it's because they're built on fear and lies.

Anyway, is there anyone man enough here to write a letter to the 2 Million people that Obama's budget deals saved from poverty? Explain to them how your pure principles are so much more important than them eating tonight and how you'd prefer they'd starve, because of Bradley Manning or some other stalking horse. Explain to the millions that now have healthcare that your purity trolling is more important than their health, because of predator drones.

For starters, you can explain it to me. I have a chronic illness that would kill me without regular healthcare. Now I don't have to worry about losing my job being a death sentence. Tell me to my face how you think it would be better if Obama hadn't won. Tell me how you'd rather I be dead, so you can feel the purity of your beliefs haven't been tainted by real-world compromise.

Explain that to the millions of women who, due to Obama being president, won't have to deal with an overturn of Roe v. Wade. Show some fucking evidence you're man enough to accept the negative consequences of what the world would be like if we actually listened to the mindless purity trolls.

Being a progressive means believing in progress -- positive change over time. It doesn't mean believing one day we'll wake up in magical fairy gumdrop land if only we all say enough mean things about Obama, and if only we try to distort the record of all the progressive things he has done.

Don't mistake for a second that the progressives that like Obama don't see his flaws, too. Some of us are capable of a more nuanced view of the world. You can always tell when that's somebody's problem with you -- you're asking them to use their brain and maybe think critically for a change instead of ragegasming out, usually in the most unfunny "sarcasm" imaginable. You start throwing facts at them, asking them to justify their position in the real world, not magical fairy gumdrop land, and they call you an agitator. OH NO THOUGHTCRIME.

dogma that is not to be questioned, purity tests, misogynistic attacks against women bloggers, basically asserting anyone who's not a white man is too biased to see Obama for what he is, turning even minor criticism of the echo chamber into a massive assault on our values, etc, etc.

That's an impressive collection of imagined offenses (and projection in some cases). You're just making stuff up out of whole cloth--I have to assume because you're unable or unwilling to engage us honestly on an intellectual level. And as I said both in the posting and throughout this thread, when it comes to this kind of behavior you and the other special liberals like you are exactly like the right-wingers you hold in such contempt.

The unmistakeable signature is the reflexive, evidence-free resort to accusations of misogyny, racism, etc. The irony is that you have no idea about either my race or anyone else's here (and I can tell you that if you think we're all either white or male you're dead wrong--so whose racism and/or sexism is on display?). Just like your counterparts on the right, you choose to resort to slurs rather than arguing honestly.

You can always tell when that's somebody's problem with you -- you're asking them to use their brain and maybe think critically for a change instead of ragegasming out, usually in the most unfunny "sarcasm" imaginable.

This shows quite a lack of self-awareness, especially given the level of rage and sarcasm in your comment. You and everyone else who parachuted in here from Rumproast have been answered with fact-filled responses and carefully-crafted arguments, often with specific references, from many different people and on many different topics in both of these threads--and it's you and yours who've systematically dodged the substantive arguments and responded with sarcasm, rage, manufactured accusations, contempt, etc. It's seemingly all that you and the other special liberals like you know how to express.

Thankfully there are plenty of people in the world who are not like that, on both sides of the aisle, and I appreciate both liberals and conservatives who are capable of treating those who disagree with them with consideration and respect.

AG, yes you still have to worry about losing your job because you may not be able to afford an individual insurance plan. I'm unemployed, cobra ran out last year and I had to get my own policy. Thanks to Obamacare, my premium is now 26% higher than it was last year.

I was completely against Obama's health care reform because of the compromises he made. His constituents are insurance companies, not you or me. That's real world.

BTW, I am a woman so that blows your white male theory. Do we all have to provide our credentials now, to be taken seriously?

Mx. Geometer:

Okay, I accept your challenge. Lets go piece by piece, straw men arguments and all.

"It's funny how 'being a good liberal' means unquestioningly believing John Caruso's crazy bullshit."

I see no evidence for this assertion. Instead I've had discussions in comment threads where myself and others have disagreed with Mr. Caruso's post in whole or in part in a polite fashion. Rewarding arguments have insured as opposed to the shouting matches in which you seams to have illicited.

"Let's see: dogma that is not to be questioned, purity tests, misogynistic attacks against women bloggers, basically asserting anyone who's not a white man is too biased to see Obama for what he is, turning even minor criticism of the echo chamber into a massive assault on our values, etc, etc. "

I see no evidence for any of these. As I've said I and others have disagreed with each other respectfully. This seams to suggest that there isn't any unquestionable dogma or purity tests. I haven't witnessed a misogynistic attack against a women blogger but instead an attack on the content of what someone, who happens to be a woman,said. I haven't seen the assertion that "anyone who's not a white man is too biased to see Obama for what he is." I don't even know what this one is: "turning even minor criticism of the echo chamber into a massive assault on our values," unless your referring to criticism of your echo chamber and you turning it into an assault on your values because you seem to be under the impression that you've been assaulted.

"And you people call yourselves liberals? Sounds more like an ur-fascist death cult to me."

There's been no evidence of ur-fascism. There's no cult of traditionalism. There's no cult of action, I've been encouraged to reflect on my actions by this blog. Disagreement is encouraged. Differences are applauded. Okay, there is an appeal to the middle class but that in itself does not ur-fascist make. There isn't an appeal to specific conspiracy theories. Pacifism is accepted and maybe encouraged. There is compassion for the weak. There is no selective populism. Common language is used. If you're going to make the claim, it is your moral responsibility to support it and not just to state it. Also, I don't call myself liberal. I call myself socialist.

"I write one critical comment on your blog and you go to Defcon 5? (And go post a graphic, monumentally unfunny homophobic comment on Rumproast?)"

Your comments on this blog has been disrespectful and inflammatory and have used straw men, red herrings, and a lack of understanding of what's actually been stated. The post on Rumproast which linked here was purposefully the same as has been the entirety of the comment section. Respectful disagreement is encouraged and I've seen it many times here. Someone picking a fight will, well, generate a fight. If you make no attempt to reach an understanding with people, there will be no understanding and to expect some, is foolish.

"You can't tolerate any dissent at all?"

It's funny that the vast majority of evidence is that we can. What we seam to have a hard time doing is having a productive conversation with one who set out to have an unproductive conversation. Your behavior is categorized as trolling and if that is your intent, you've solicited your desired result. Congratulations.

"It's funny how much of your argument boils down to, 'shut up, a white man is speaking!'"

This is another baseless and unsupported accusation. I don't know anyone who has told you yet the shut up but maybe I will now. If you cannot carry on a conversation with someone who disagrees with you in a respectful manner (you've been disrespectful from the beginning) then please leave us be. I don't appreciate shouting matches like the one you've started. I also haven't seen anyone express racial superiority. Perhaps you could point out where.

"If you all aren't smart enough to understand it's possible to decide, on the whole, Obama has done more good than harm, I don't know how to explain it to you."

Perhaps if you would make the argument that he is instead of unsupported assaults on character we could have a productive conversation. We have made the argument that Obama has done more harm then good but I haven't seen the reverse argument here. There are some assertions of good, which have been contradicted, but so far nothing to compare the good as opposed to the harm. I have claimed and supported the opposite. If you cannot make that argument then that's your problem, not ours.

"You probably bitch when your favorite baseball player hits .350. Anything less than hitting 1.000 means that a player is the worst player on earth and doesn't really love the game of baseball. Never mind that nobody's hit 1.000 before. It's horseshit."

Actually people have hit 1.000 in a game before. It's not that uncommon. Also, I've never behaved in the way you've described. I usually fault defense for winning or loosing a game, not offense.

"If a lifelong gay narwhal hugging Democrat like me is the biggest boogeyman you can scare up, you don't get out of the house much."

It's not and you've obviously haven't spent much time reading this blog.

"If you think that a couple of mocking comments by me constitute a full-fledged invasion, you live in a sad little echo chamber."

It's nice of you to admit your lack of good faith. Few people are so polite. I just wish that you would either try and have a discussion on substance or to leave us alone so we can continue ours. It isn't always respectful but it tends to be and it is on substance.

"If you can't take even the slightest logical criticism of your beliefs, it's because they're built on fear and lies."

So far I've filed to see any logic that isn't a fallacy or any argument based on fact from you. Perhaps you should demonstrate some before you accuse us of somehow disrespecting it.

"Anyway, is there anyone man enough here to write a letter to the 2 Million people that Obama's budget deals saved from poverty?"

I will and I've dealt with people in poverty. Obama is responsible for keeping far more people in poverty and letting them fall into poverty then he is from rescuing them. I see the results first hand in the DC public services sector where Obama's budget cuts are having a quite noticeable and ill effect. I will fault Obama for doing more to encourage poverty then to fight it.

"Explain to them how your pure principles are so much more important than them eating tonight and how you'd prefer they'd starve, because of Bradley Manning or some other stalking horse."

I fault Obama on poverty for his performance on poverty. This is directly independent of his support for the abuse of pvt. Manning. I think the poor needing food and shelter to be more important. Shelter isn't guaranteed in my home town and government can do a lot about it. It isn't and Obama's policies are making it harder for the city government to do anything about it. I have no problem explaining this to people.

"Explain to the millions that now have healthcare that your purity trolling is more important than their health, because of predator drones."

Comparatively few people have health care now then before, by Obama's own admission. Abuses of the health care industry remain and almost nothing have been done on health care inflation. Yes the health care reform isn't good enough because the health care reform isn't good enough. I was recently hospitalized in Providence Hospital in Washington DC and most people on my ward could use preventive care. On the whole it is harder for them to get it because of Obama's policies. I also care about the health of those effected by predator drones, do you?

"For starters, you can explain it to me."

I think I've started to.

"I have a chronic illness that would kill me without regular healthcare. Now I don't have to worry about losing my job being a death sentence."

So your anecdotal example isn't one of the 45 million without health care, like me. Oh, I also have a deadly chronic illness and I am one of those 45 million. I rely on the public provision and was recently hospitalized in a situation that could have been prevented with regular care. I'm one of those who is harmed by Obama's budget cuts to programs that provide some public provision of care. I'm not going to support someone who harms me. I envy your position as I don't have a job because of my health and the public agency that is designed to help me doesn't have the funds to help everybody. Also you are in greater danger of losing your job due to Obama's economic policies which are more towards helping the rich get wealthier rather then getting the economy functioning.

"Tell me to my face how you think it would be better if Obama hadn't won."

I cannot tell it to your face but you would be better of had Obama not won due to lack of support from the left. The history of US Presidential elections shows that when a third party starts to gain momentum a major prty shifts to capture those voters. An outside threat would do more to incentivize the democratic party to support actually liberal positions then throwing away votes at a conservative party.

"Tell me how you'd rather I be dead, so you can feel the purity of your beliefs haven't been tainted by real-world compromise."

I'm not going to do that because that's not what I believe. I think it's acceptable to let someone die today if it prevents ten deaths in ten years. I'm sorry if your one of the few for which the Obama administration policies actually effect in a life or death way but there are many more people with their lives at stake that are being harmed by the Obama administration. I also think their lives are important.

"Explain that to the millions of women who, due to Obama being president, won't have to deal with an overturn of Roe v. Wade."

Because abortion is so accessible today? and the Obama administration is doing a lot to make it more accessible?

"Show some fucking evidence you're man enough to accept the negative consequences of what the world would be like if we actually listened to the mindless purity trolls."

I still claim the world would be a better place if people fought for something good as opposed to bad but not worst. I don't demand purity but I do demand positive from a politician seeking my support. I have voted for people I thought were good but not perfect. Obama isn't one of them. If he were I would consider voting for him.

"Being a progressive means believing in progress -- positive change over time."

It also means not being regressive. It's interesting that the progressive movement of the early 20th century occurred because of the populist movement. I suspect that you would vilify populists as purists and if we listened to you that progressiveness would never had happened. huh...

"It doesn't mean believing one day we'll wake up in magical fairy gumdrop land if only we all say enough mean things about Obama, and if only we try to distort the record of all the progressive things he has done."

I believe I've seen more facts from me then I have from you. If I had distorted the record counter what I've said; don't attack my character. I don't imaging positive progress is magical, it takes time and hard work. That's why I think not falling into the lessor of two evils trap is so important. Actual progressivism as you've defined it requires a long term strategy. A strategy that lasts two to four years won't do it.

"Don't mistake for a second that the progressives that like Obama don't see his flaws, too."

I think the point of the post you've mocked is that they do see it, they just don't care.

"Some of us are capable of a more nuanced view of the world."

Funny: To me your view seems simplistic. Perhaps a respectful conversation is in order.

"You can always tell when that's somebody's problem with you -- you're asking them to use their brain and maybe think critically for a change instead of ragegasming out, usually in the most unfunny 'sarcasm' imaginable."

This seams to me to have been your response. From the beginning until now you've demonstrated no desire to think critically about what anyone here has said and instead seam intent on ragegasming out. Why don't we abandoned the straw men to fight each other and have a fact based discussion or argument. Not one based on character.

"You start throwing facts at them,"

I've yet to see a fact from you.

"asking them to justify their position in the real world,"

I've done so since the post you find so offensive.

"not magical fairy gumdrop land"

Which is why I take things seriously.

"and they call you an agitator"

I like agitation.

"OH NO THOUGHTCRIME"

Who's: yours or mine?

Geometer -

If we didn't line up behind behind the white men that the Dems ran in '00 and '04 then we're racists? Huh? Last I checked Nader (Arab-American) picked a Native American female and a Latino male as running mates that year, up against the Dems' 4 rich white dudes.

By your own odd standard it seems you'd be the "racist" here. Not that this is how I nornally determine these things, but it seems to be the way you want to.

The problem with the Dems if you want to use a baseball reference is that they have no intention of swinging at most pitches. They are batting maybe .020 (and this has mainly been bunts) while hoping for walks or getting bit by a pitch while blaming the mean ol' GOP pitcher for their own failure to swing.

"The only thing of value there is the blogroll - it's like the google maps of special."

That's self-awareness.

Bravo, Benjamin Arthur Schwab! Your patience and civility are inspiring.

Posted by: Angry Geometer | Monday, May 09, 2011 at 08:55 PM

basically asserting anyone who's not a white man is too biased to see Obama for what he is, turning even minor criticism of the echo chamber into a massive assault on our values, etc, etc.

Wait, what the fuck is this? You're the one spewing racist crap here. Seriously -- we're not all white here. You're the bigot here, straight up, styling yourself as a friend to minorities when doing everything in your power to screw them over.

And echo chamber? Do you smell the shit you shovel? Since when do pro-minority, anti-war, pro-poor forces have an "echo chamber?" You're describing yourself. You have an echo chamber you hipocrite. You're backing the mainstream Dems. You turn on Washington Week and you see yourself -- nobody that cares about me and mine is on that program. You decide to revel in hipocritical contempt and turn to Limbaugh and you hear your rhetorical tactics, not ours. Let's get this straight: you're spewing a racist, self-agraddizing line here, no one else.

Posted by: Angry Geometer | Monday, May 09, 2011 at 08:55 PM

It's funny how much of your argument boils down to, "shut up, a white man is speaking!"

And once again, the well-off arrogant white asshole in the room is you. I know you find it difficult to claim virtue on race issues while claiming racial privilege, so let me give you some advice: stop trying.

Posted by: Angry Geometer | Monday, May 09, 2011 at 08:55 PM

Anyway, is there anyone man enough here to write a letter to the 2 Million people that Obama's budget deals saved from poverty? Explain to them how your pure principles are so much more important than them eating tonight and how you'd prefer they'd starve

And what of those of us who are starving, who are struggling to find work, who are watching as our neighbors become homeless? You get to tell us to fuck off because you got yours? You're just another fucking rightwing thug, satisfied that you got your piece even as we get ripped off.

Posted by: Angry Geometer | Monday, May 09, 2011 at 08:55 PM

For starters, you can explain it to me. I have a chronic illness that would kill me without regular healthcare. Now I don't have to worry about losing my job being a death sentence.For starters, you can explain it to me. I have a chronic illness that would kill me without regular healthcare. Now I don't have to worry about losing my job being a death sentence.

And I've lost family due to chronic diseases that would have been cured in Canada. But you got yours, so that's okay. Fuck you.

Posted by: Angry Geometer | Monday, May 09, 2011 at 08:55 PM

Explain that to the millions of women who, due to Obama being president, won't have to deal with an overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Swing and a miss, liar. Roe v. Wade is the best thing that ever happened to Republicans. That ruling has provided fuel for their machine for over a generation. They won't overturn it. They don't need to. State-level rightwingers can spew misogynistic policies quite well regardless of Roe v. Wade -- we already see a proliferation of anti-women legislation springing up. The rightwing literally turned to abortion in the mid-seventies because racism wasn't selling as well. They don't give two damp shits about abortion and have no problems getting them for themselves. Once Bob Jones v. the IRS came down, though, they knew they were fucked on race: whites just didn't hate black people enough anymore. I suppose they needed more like you to take up the slack. In any event, rightwing Dems will happily undermine abortion rights and they do it more effectively than Repugs ever could. So you can lie all you want, but if the Repugs wanted to defeat Roe, they would have done it when Bush was in office, and they would have done so with Dem cooperation from your buddies in the establishment. So sell us another.

Posted by: Angry Geometer | Monday, May 09, 2011 at 08:55 PM

Being a progressive means believing in progress -- positive change over time.

I don't give a flying fuck in a windstorm about what "progressive" means today. It's one step above complete political cant -- useful only because the word "liberal" is corrupted by well-off interests. But I can tell you this: liberal still means something because we have several thousand years of human history that shows us its opposite. Hell, you don't even need to define it positively (though you can): check out the ideological movement that favors the poor and common man that everyone from king to CEO to president is doing his best to shit all over -- that would be liberalism. And you can call yourself a progressive all you like: you're actively hoping to fuck over people poorer than you so you can get a piece. You're not liberal. Hell, you aren't even a decent human being. But if you want to be a "progressive," I yield that battle. Who can stand against your colossal self-indulgence on that score?

Posted by: Angry Geometer | Monday, May 09, 2011 at 08:55 PM

Don't mistake for a second that the progressives that like Obama don't see his flaws, too.

And here we are: when Obama murders any of us, that, at best, qualifies as a "flaw." You need to get this: we don't care if you're critical of Obama. Ultimately, you don't care whether or not we live or die. The fact that you aren't as enthustiatic about flavor of the week is irrelevant.

This, right here, is why I'm not as enthusiastic as my fellows here are about pretending you can ever be civil. Though their efforts are laudable, I stand by the position that you can't be civil with someone who doesn't grant you the right to exist. We tried that shit for centuries and were awesomely burned in the Sixties when well-off white pseudoliberals shrugged their way through the civil rights revolution and then enthusiatically endorsed the racist backlash. I value the respect of many people here and do not seek to cause them any sort of discomfort, but there's no way I'm reducing my dignity by honoring some thug who would happily vote for me and mine to get murdered in the streets by racist cops so they can feel "safe." So long as it's not your head on the chopping block, you're fine with us being lined up as state sacrifice. You just lost the right to civility, right there.

Whenever some rightwing prick is rounding up the Roma in Europe, there's always a well-heeled caste who points out their current poobah is "imperfect." When our leadership pimps No Child Left Behind, a particular subgroup of well-off whites looks at the devastation it causes in minority schools and declares it "imperfect." When one of the U.S. pet dictators finds it necessary to slaughter some of his own people, that same well-heeled caste considers taxpayer support of the monster "imperfect." On behalf of everyone on the receiving end of this shit: fuck them and fuck you.

Thank you, Benjamin. You truly are an inspiration. And thanks to everyone else as well. I've been proud watching people here systematically dismantle the empty talking points AG and friends have been tossing out throughout this thread--pride in being part of a community of well-informed, insightful and thoughtful people who have something besides mockery and anger inside them. And never more so than now.

NOoC, the civility I aim for here is the civility that allows for an open conversation, especially--and this is critical--when it's one on one. A useful conversation can't happen when people feel attacked, and I honestly believe that everyone deserves to be given a chance to change their minds.

That most definitely does not mean that I believe in letting assholes walk all over me, or expect anyone else to (here or elsewhere). AG's forfeited any benefit of the doubt anyone could give him--seriously, when even Benjamin Arthur Schwab loses patience with you, you are truly a lost cause--and he deserved every bit of your inimitable combination of abuse and information.

To anyone else visiting from Rumproast (or elsewhere): if all you have inside you is bile and mockery--if you're incapable of having a respectful exchange with people who disagree with you--go back to your sad, incestuous echo chamber of grade school snark, where even Democratic Congresspeople like Dennis Kucinich who are guaranteed votes on everything Democratic aren't pure enough to merit anything but your scorn. Pat yourselves on the back as you try to one-up each other with expressions of contempt for everyone (and it sure is a wide, wide world of people) you mistakenly believe you're better than.

But if you can actually engage in a civil conversation and treat people with basic respect--no matter who you are, or what you think--you're welcome here.

"But if you can actually engage in a civil conversation and treat people with basic respect--no matter who you are, or what you think--you're welcome here."

A shame you didn't observe such niceties when you visited Rumproast using the nym "Fellow Obama Felator," eh John, you hypocritical bloviating useless wanker?

Witness the civility from your side of the aisle, and contrast it with the tone of the visitors you've had via Rumproast who've chosen to comment on your blog:

"Sooooooo great, but the best part of this posting is the title, where you treat the Obama administration’s torture of Bradley Manning as a source of humor. Ha ha ha! You’re right—fuck Bradley Manning! Let’s all make jokes at his expense for tarnishing the reputation of this great president we elected!

I’m curious, StrangeAppar8us: do you recommend swallowing when we blow Obama? I mean, I always want to, but I don’t know if we’re worthy to imbibe his exalted seed.
Comment by Fellow Obama Fellator on 05/07/11 at 04:47 PM"

In your case, you should probably just keep taking it in the ass for the next six years.
Comment by StrangeAppar8us on 05/07/11 at 04:49 PM

Yeah, just like Bradley Manning! He’d better not drop his bar of soap while they’re making him stand naked in front of his cell, right?

It’s totally cool you’re so “out” (ha ha!) with your homophobia.
Comment by Fellow Obama Fellator on 05/07/11 at 06:01 PM

"That’s a great point gil mann, because fellatio is sooooo gross and filled with homophobic overtones whereas “keep taking it in the ass” is just a totally funny metaphor. And it was super clever of StrangeAppar8us to use it in this thread because in addition to being an asshole who’s doing everything he can to make Obama look bad, Bradley Manning is gay!

In fact it’s so funny I think this blog should be renamed “Keep taking it in the ass from Obama, Salon-reading firebaggers!” Ha ha ha!
Comment by Fellow Obama Fellator on 05/07/11 at 07:03 PM"

Listen, I'm not a Democrat, I'm from the British left, and I've long experience of divisive timewasters, and precisely zero sensitivity to gratuitous sexual jibes, but give me a break with your claim for the "high ground" here.

Rumproast is a blog that doesn't take itself too seriously, recognizing the limits of online "activism," but numbering within our commenters and contributors numerous people who contribute to society and politics in various meaningful ways, some of which you would no doubt disparage, since that seems to be your default position toward anyone on the left who disagrees with you and what passes for your approach.

I genuinely applaud those within your own community who do more than post online, but your truly puerile response to what was a passing Twitter reference to a post of yours doesn't exactly cast you in a flattering light, so spare us the "civility" lectures, OK?

YAFB would have better ground to stand on if the site he's pimping wasn't more racist than Redstate. You're late to you're Klan rally, friend: don't let us keep you.

"YAFB would have better ground to stand on if the site he's pimping wasn't more racist than Redstate."

A pathetic and groundless accusation - and yet another gratuitous sexual metaphor. Classic. You don't even grasp that you're doing it, do you?

Who's used the rightwing-favored term "race card" in all seriousness recently in the exchanges between these two blogs? Hint: It wasn't anyone at Rumproast.

I'll maybe run that observation of yours past our commenters and co-bloggers who happen to be poeple of color. They'll probably laugh. Rufeully.

I'm comfortable on the ground on which I stand, thanks very much. Take a look at your own mottes in this benighted echo chamber.

Oh, but the sexual metaphor is appropriate. At the very top of the linked post is a racist image, and your patronizing of blacks via said image is very much linked to the misogynistic practice of pimping.

Look: you're a bigot. And a liar. The first person to accuse someone of racism was one of yours --- look upthread -- and we took him to task for it. Nonwhites here took issue: look upthread. You're white, you're posting racist images, using racist language, backing racist policies (via support for mainstream Dems), and are on record not giving a shit because those policies favor you. That is the very definition of racism -- institutional racism.

This isn't even a matter of debate. You're backing policies that help you because of your skin color and hurt the rest of us because of ours. You're the kind of person we should have beat down completely after the Civil War and WWII. If you want to feel "comfortable" about yourself, go right on ahead. But don't think you can come on this site and piss on us and tell us it's raining. The policies you back hurt me and mine disproportionately and help you. So, all due respect, fuck you and your white supremacist policies.

And racist imagery. Seriously. I don't have the stomach to frequent Redstate much, but even they'd blanch at using pics that vile. I mean, that's LGF territory right there, bigot.

Oh, for those who found that ambiguous -- LGF is Little Green Footballs. Don't look it up. Fucking serious here, this is not goatse-style internet baiting, leave that shit alone. Just search for goatse and tubgirl a hundred times over instead.

And whites took issue with Geometer's racism too -- I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I'm from the British left, and I've long experience of divisive timewasters

From my perspective, the divisiveness usually comes from the political parties (a generous term, I would prefer to call them factions of a one-party state), which are unfortunately not much more than instruments of preserving and expanding existing power systems. The technique of subdividing the body politic is how they acquire their power. "The problem is the other party" or just generally lower-class bashing (easy to do since the poor quite rationally vote in much lower numbers than the upper classes who are far more indoctrinated) is the attitude they adopt, and the putative rightwing parties are not alone in this. Ignore the fact that there is disturbing and pervasive overlap in their actual policies, which serve elite interests, financial institutions, corporations, defense contractors, etc. and on the whole are enormously regressive. Interesting that you characterize it as wasting time to critique those policies.

Is it a waste of time to point out that preserving and in fact buttressing the privatized insurance industry, which is the source of most of the problems with healthcare in the U.S., serves the interests of those who pay for the campaigns of politicians on both sides of the aisle? Is anyone who criticized those policies of New Labour which were neoliberal, anti-worker, pro-war, and authoritarian similarly a divisive timewaster? Is there no level of compromise (I would call it subservience to power) you would regard as a bridge too far?

You missed this, YAFB: "That most definitely does not mean that I believe in letting assholes walk all over me, or expect anyone else to (here or elsewhere)." I'd never heard of Rumproast until one of you used a posting of mine as a jumping off point for a lengthy round (with dozens of comments when I first looked) of self-congratulatory sniping, proceeding from a truly vile bit of Obama-shielding humor at the expense of Bradley Manning, and a few of you trickled over here to carry the fight to the benighted. Even then, I decided to give you a small taste of your own mockery solely because it truly makes me livid to watch people like the RR crowd treat this hero--this extraordinary individual who's sacrificed so much and suffered so much for the sake of his principles--as an object of derision, simply because he has the bad fortune to be persecuted by Barack Obama instead of George Bush. I'll say it again: I believe in civility, but not toward people so filled to overflowing with self-satisfied contempt and empty of common human decency.

I fully expected someone from RR to seize on that--a satire of your own brand of infantile sarcastic mockery--and ignore all of the substantive responses Charles, ergo, Benjamin, NOoC, and the rest of us have made to the empty talking points your lot have been tossing out here as though they pass for informed debate, since that's of a piece with what you all have done from the first moment you showed up here. And you didn't disappoint.

As for how the RR commenters have behaved here, how they've been treated here, and who's offered real substance in what they've said, I'm more than happy to let people read both this thread and the "Words speak louder than actions" thread and decide for themselves.

"At the very top of the linked post is a racist image."

Explain how it is "racist."

Then try desperately to justify your use of the word "pimping" and explain how it is appropriate in this oh-so-civil environment, along with your other uncivilites upthread. I'm returning the favor for what was inflicted on our blog in my current choice of mild incivility, but you ...?

Then look up "irony" in the dictionary of your choice, you uncivil, humorless troll, and try hard to understand why none of our community who are people of color voiced exception at the post, because they understood it in the context of several long years of Rumproast doing its small bit in combating racism in the American national discourse, as any scrutiny of our back posts will prove.

Then address the repeated unprovoked sexual imagery in John Caruso's supposedly anonymous postings on Rumproast, let alone the numerous instances of it which we laughed our socks off at because we major in pointing and laughing at such things, especially from those who consider themselves somehow "special" and above the fray.

Then consider the backstory that led John Caruso to put up this plainly retaliatory childish post - his bruised ego at a tweet from Rumproast's founder that ran:

"Rumproast
#FF @digby56 because she has to put up w/ bullshit like this: http://tinyurl.com/5rs362j
6 May"

Then explain "institutional racism" to those who're reaping the whirlwind in those states where the plurality of voters thought it didn't matter who got their vote in the last election, if they voted at all.

Then stick your accusations of "bigot" and "liar" up your lardy useless ass:

"This isn't even a matter of debate."

No, because you couldn't debate yourself out of a paper bag even if you were located outside the paper bag to start with.

Then go fuck yourself, self-appointed spokesperson for all who frequent here. Seriously.

"You're the kind of person ... blah bah blah"

Read above again, fuckwit. I'm NOT American, and NOT a Democrat. Stick your lazy stereotypes where the sun don't shine, and think about enlisting in a course that'll help you digest plain English.

Having done all that, I'll think about responding to any substantive points you may have to make, because so far, you've got nothing except prejudice and lashing out at unwelcome truths. Or I'll find something more productive to do, like plaiting my nails.

Mx. YAFB:

All of the comments on this blog from the Rump Roast crowd have been disrespectful and inflammatory and only have cursory connections to actual discussion which are, in reality, disguised assaults on character. It is disingenuous to behave in such a manner and then to complain about not being respected. If you desire to be respected then you should apologize and behave in a respectful manner. Rightly or wrongly, your behavior has reaped exactly what you're superficially complaining about. You need to take responsibility for your own actions and not just demand that others take responsibility for theirs.

Others:

I thank you for the kind comments. I am dealing with these trolls in the manner I chose for myself. I haven't seen any of the other regulars behave badly here. I think there is considerable restraint given the nature of the personal insults levied.

Oh, envoi, I can't let this pass:

"The first person to accuse someone of racism was one of yours"

Nope. Somebody posted using the nym "Heckuva job, whitey!", a nym that commenter has used (I'm assuming it's the same person) in a variety of contexts for a number of years now - it harks back to Bush's infamous "Hekuva job, Browny!" accolade in the wake of Katrina. The fact it excited such a strong reaction and the assumption of an "accusation of racism" from some is no doubt telling, but then online who knows who is anything? Did it hit a nerve?

Mottes. Mottes. Mottes ...

And Benjamin Arthur Schwab: I have no ax to grind with you, sir, but forgive me if I choose to leave you to conduct your life as you see fit, and require no apology from you for the conduct of other commenters here, which are totally irrelevant to the rest of my life, nor John Caruso's childishly uncivil comments on our own blog, and hence am myself totally unapologetic at any post hoc pearl-clutching at what my blogmates may or may not have stated, so no, I won't be complying with your request for an apology, and I have no concern for anyone here's respect for me.

Having only lately offered any input to this thread and been a mere observer, I think you are partisanly selective in your recall of and reaction to the record above of the exchanges in terms of who was uncivil to whom, first or ever, and paint with a rather broad brush, but we can certainly agree to disagree. I'm rather bored with it, and can't help to consider the whole episode with the sense of proportion it warrants and take from it what humor I can.

I wish you the best with your real-world endeavors, and more strength to you as you continue to do what you can to help others.

Your posting system means that I am overtaken by cross-posts, so forgive me if I don't respond to each and every one


"I'd never heard of Rumproast until one of you used a posting of mine as a jumping off point for a lengthy round (with dozens of comments when I first looked) of self-congratulatory sniping, proceeding from a truly vile bit of Obama-shielding humor at the expense of Bradley Manning."

Bulshit. You, John, are a blatant liar. For all it matters, I don't imagine you were even aware of Rumproast's existence (o halcyon days!) until the tweet I quoted above, which provoked your post:

"Rumproast
#FF @digby56 because she has to put up w/ bullshit like this: http://tinyurl.com/5rs362j
6 May"

You may be able to lead the commenters here up the garden path, but don't try it with me.

And thank you for not insulting what passes for my intelligence by attempting to deny you posed as "Fellow Obama Fellator." More civility to you!

I have a Twitter account which I never use, YAFB, and I had no idea anyone from Rumproast had tweeted about my postings until well into this silly episode (referrals from Twitter in TypePad--my blogging service--don't typically send you to the referring tweet). I don't even know why you'd think I would be lying about my account of how I noticed what was going on at Rumproast; why lie about that when I told you straight out that I was your boogeyman, and why I said what I did? But given the constant and entirely unsupported stream of slurs about sexism, racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc etc ad nauseum from you and your ilk, "liar" is nothing more than I would have expected. Your arguments are bankrupt, so you attack the person. Just like the right. Exactly like the right.

And as to that: I do at least thank you and the rest for illustrating the point of my posting so thoroughly. I've discovered, to my amazement, that even I was underestimating just how much people like you are like the worst of the right-wingers out there. I won't say it's been enjoyable, but it has been an education.

John, I have no "ilk." You should have gathered that by now by the repeated wrongheaded attempted mischaracterizations of me as of the "American left" or a "Democrat" when I am neither of those things and nobody here knows enough about me to pigeonhole me to your satisfaction.

But you will never tire of your broadbrush dismissals of all those who are indeed on the American left, some of whom I have gotten to know and value greatly over the past few years, nor your divisiveness, so I'm content to leave you to it. Because, like me as a blogger in a minor outlet, trying to make sure my own contribution is positive in a variety of ways by my own lights and bearing mind that life cannot be lived online, in the grand scheme of things, you don't really matter all that much. You're not our "boogeyman." We have those aplenty, and tend to pick much, much more on the right wing for our attentions. Now a lot of those guys, believe it or not, really DO class as a serious enemy, and not just in the American context.

Adieu.

Your "ilk" meant other people like you from Rumproast, YAFB, and special liberals more generally--who know no national boundaries, and of whom you truly are a canonical example.

By the way, all: I responded to the Rumproast crowd directly here, if you're interested (and especially if you're curious for a more lengthy response to their highly selective dudgeon in response to sexual metaphors, which makes perfect sense in light of their refusal to hold Obama to the same standards as Bush).

Thank you for proving my own point here, about your pathological need to pigeonhole and dismiss those on the left, John. If I were to lower myself to your heights, I'd follow that with a needer-needer-needer.

I'll pass your love on to the entire British - indeed, European - left, with whom I am obviously in daily intimate contact, and await the time when you can broaden the ambition of your disdain to the entire world's left, at which point I'm sure there'll be bread, circuses, and unicorns for all, and a pony grazing in every backlot as bluebirds nibble on golden ears of whatever it is that bluebirds nibble on.

And - this really will be adieu now - if being "special" differentiates me from you, then I consider that a heady compliment of the highest degree that I will do my utmost to live up to.

My problem is not so much that you class rightwing hacks and politicians as your enemy, but that you think that Democratic apparatchiks and shills aren't as well. That you don't recognize that they are cogs in the same regressive system, mechanically serving what are fundamentally the same interests. That their rhetoric may differ (though not by much) but their policies do not on an obscenely wide spectrum of issues. If you care about imperialism, the war economy, corporatism, investor rights trade agreements, civil liberties, subservience to financial institutions and the insurance industry, the war on drugs aka the war on the lower class, and many other important issues, the Democrats are not your friends. If these policies are worth criticizing when there is a Republican in the white house, then they are worth criticizing when a Democrat is in the white house (perhaps doubly so, since this is the party that is allegedly supposed to be responsive to these concerns).

...this really will be adieu now...

Promises, promises.

I do find it hilarious that you misrepresent my comments directed at you and a subset of "liberals" as a smear against THE ENTIRE BRITISH AND INDEED EUROPEAN LEFT. You just never get tired of this crap, do you? Does this foolishness actually win you arguments somewhere? Anyway, sorry, but I'm afraid I'd much rather listen to the words of more honest and perspicacious Brits.

...if being "special" differentiates me from you, then I consider that a heady compliment of the highest degree that I will do my utmost to live up to.

On that point I have no doubt.

Posted by: YAFB | Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 01:17 PM

Explain how it is "racist."

"Like most thoughtful Liberals, I’m consumed with guilt that the well-spoken Black man I helped elect President has proven to be nothing more than a blood-soaked Santeria Voodoo King who kills his enemies at will, then eats their flesh in order to absorb the power of their spirit-totems."

-- You, just now.

Posted by: YAFB | Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 01:17 PM

Then try desperately to justify your use of the word "pimping" --

I don't have to justify shit. I can and will use pseudosexual metaphors as I see fit and you don't get to claim I'm wrong just because you're out of distractions from your own racist position. You have nothing to suggest I was morally wrong -- you're just throwing poo and hoping people won't notice your pointed hood and bedsheet attire.

Do you think this is a video game? You front a political policy which is "I got mine, fuck everyone else!" and you think you get ahead by criticizing someone's metaphors? If your head was any further up your own ass Stephen Hawking would write a book about your gravitational effects. I mean, you do understand that you're not on a right wing blog, right? Ad hominems and tu quoque won't get you an inch of respect here. If I were Satan himself, you'd still be a racist piece of shit.

Posted by: YAFB | Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 01:17 PM

Then explain "institutional racism" to those who're reaping the whirlwind in those states where the plurality of voters thought it didn't matter who got their vote in the last election, if they voted at all.

WTF? So, in your little world, consisting of primarily your anus, sphincter, and your keyboard, those people who are tired of your favorite candidates shitting all over them are refusing to vote at all and suffering because they "let" rightwing Repugs defeat the rightwing Dems who were in office? There's more in Heaven and Earth than in your backwards, little mind. Needless to say, not everyone who's not a dipshit and backing a candidate that screws over the poor or minirities has the same tactics, so your claim is false on its face. Don't let me stop you from trying again, though. As they say back home: go on and get your lie right.

Posted by: YAFB | Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 01:17 PM

Then look up "irony" in the dictionary of your choice, you uncivil, humorless troll. . .

• You came here in order to post controversial, bullshit posts. That makes you the troll. And you specifically came here to troll because we wouldn't go to your site.
• Humorless: well, given the above, you're the one who's irony-deficient -- and I'm pretty sure you threw that slur out because you knew good and well people are laughing at you due to my posts. But go on, throw me another ad hominem.

Posted by: YAFB | Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 01:17 PM

. . . try hard to understand why none of our community who are people of color voiced exception at the post. . .

Holy. Shit.

Did you just claim some of your best friends are black? Seriously.

I'm dying here guys, honestly. People in the room think I'm crazy. Could you have at least gotten a few posts in before pulling out the White Racist Rightwing Pseudoliberal's Ace-In-the-Hole? Damn.

Okay, let me explain this to you in small words so you can understand. Just because a brown person somewhere, someplace likes you doesn't mean you're not an asshole. You see, people who don't share your melanin content are what we call human beings, and, as such, have this thing called "free will." This means that they can make decisions which are distasteful, or self-destructive, or ironic, or good, or helpful, or the entire gamut of possibilities. As such, the fact that one of them endorsed your smug, selfish, self-aggradizing politics does not mean you're not smug, selfish, or self-aggradizing. Tu sabes?

God. Damn. I don't even. Damn.

But y'know what? That's not even the point.

I didn't call you a racist because of your post, though your post was vile. I called you a racist because of your policies. That's why there was nothing to debate. Hell, you haven't even tried to debate it. Neither you nor the other troll are willing to, and with good reason.

Simply put, you back a guy that fucks me over. You know this. He ruins lives. He murders people. And you don't give a shit. You know his wrath mostly falls on people with more melanin content than you. And you don't give a shit. Then you come over here and criticize me for seeking for my own interests, purely because those thwart yours.

See? Your willingness -- and activity -- that puts your interest ahead of others based on skin color is why you're a racist and a bigot. You could stop posting tomorrow and that would still be the case. The only way for you to be right is for me to shut up and stop looking out for myself or anyone I happen to be related to, so that's why you're here -- telling us to, in effect, shut up. You're part of a grand tradition of well-off whites who tell those who get hurt by policies that help them to shut up. When they do it to poor whites, it's classism. When they do it to other races, it's racism.

Posted by: YAFB | Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 01:17 PM

.Read above again, fuckwit. I'm NOT American, and NOT a Democrat.

So fucking what? Are you SERIOUSLY claiming the British don't have imperialistic racist policies that dovetail with the U.S. Fuckwit, the British are world leaders on this score. Last time I checked, Britain still had no problems sending troops on imperialistic adventures.

The fact of the matter is, you're backing racist policies. I don't care what nationality you are. I didn't call you a Republican. I called you a white supremacist. And I don't have to be nice or kind to white supremacists, no matter what side of the pond they're on.

...serious enemy, and not just in the American context

Obama has proven (from day one, actually) that he is a world enemy. He's standing on the shoulders of Bush's executive power.

And Obama is especially effective because he's turned the left (where ever you may happen to be) into cheerleaders for his crimes.

Which left?

Cool story, bro.

"And once again, the well-off arrogant white asshole in the room is you"

Well, I'm biracial. And well-off? Math teachers are well-off now? Did I stumble on a tea partier blog somehow?

Arrogant asshole? Sure. Got me there.

As for the rest of it, burn that straw man down! Far easier than trying to refute the facts I raised!

It's hilarious to have a bunch of (ostensibly) straight white choady males try to win the Politically Correct Olympics here. To impress a bunch of other (ostensibly) straight white choady males with how much they love the blacks and the poors and the queers and the wimmins -- by telling the blacks and the poors and the queers and the wimmins to shut up and quit having thoughts of their own, quit liking their president, quit talking back to you choads. Well, sorry. It's not going to happen.

Looks like Angry Geometer missed YAFB's memo touting "the tone of the visitors you've had via Rumproast who've chosen to comment on your blog." I do at least appreciate him providing not only such a peerless example of self-refutation and self-parody, but yet another perfect illustration of the point of the posting. My QED cup truly runneth over.

Posted by: Angry Geometer | Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 05:11 PM

It's hilarious to have a bunch of (ostensibly) straight white choady males try to win the Politically Correct Olympics here.

Swing and a miss, selfish prick, seeing as how you came onto this blog to express that you back Obama because he was useful to you -- and that you don't care if he screws us over. Are you getting it now? You're a selfish prick who doesn't care about a political group that doesn't include yourself, not because they've done anything wrong, but simply because you lack a conscience. We don't think you're bad because we disagree with you; we think you're bad because you're a terrible human being. You're the very universal definition of Terrible Human Being: someone that fucks you over so that they can get ahead.

You knew that, of course. You handwave about "facts" and you provided none. Benjamin treated you with more respect than you deserved and gave you a point-by-point refutation. I called you on your bigotry against me and mine.

And way to pretend we're all white. You know good and well we're not all white, and sure as hell not all straight or male. You just read that upthread. But hey, keep telling yourself that we're patronizing assholes like yourself.

But do yourself a favor: remember that your hostile use of the term "Politically Correct" is a sure-fire right-wing giveaway. Thus, if my cousin loses his job so that Obama's buddies can get a bigger cut and I complain: well, now, since my cousin is darker than you, that must be a cry for "political correctness." You stink of Limbaugh when you use that phrase; I know it's how you really feel, so you'll want to keep that supressed.

Like we said before: as far as you're concerned, your pain matters and ours doesn't. That's why you earned that fuck you. You can tell us to shut up all you want, but we aren't about to stop fighting for, at the very least, mere survival.

God, I'll tell you one thing. I love -- I absolutely adore -- how much these guys need someone browner than they are to tell them their bigotry is okay. I've noticed this since childhood -- rightwingers must have someone to tell them, hey, it's okay, we {insert non-European ethnicity here} love what you're doing. I mean, we point out that some of us are obviously not white or male and what's the response: they pretend we didn't say that! And it's not the first time I've seen it on the web. (I've seen something close to it irl, but that's pushing off-topic even for this.)

I have to acknowledge a Republican -- well, not virtue, but lack-of-a-vice: their kind doesn't give a shit if their victims approve. They're in it for the bottom line. But these guys? They back a policy that crushes your job, your credit, and kills your friend and is particularly aimed at screwing over brown people (and straight-up murdering them overseas) -- and they get pissy because they don't get a thank-you.

Were whinier, useless bitches ever seen on this Earth?

"by telling the blacks and the poors and the queers and the wimmins to shut up and quit having thoughts of their own, quit liking their president"

I was unaware that majorities of all of those groups like Obama.

My wife recently steered me to Queers Against Obama:

http://www.gaysagainstobama.org/

Scroll down a bit... those are some excellent graphics depicting what Obama really means to the world.

Obama has been a powerful actor for Goldman Sachs, Wall St in general, the Pentagon, the weapons industry, the nuke industry, Big Coal, the oil industry, America's spy agencies, the pharm industry, private insurers, the Israeli right and himself.

And you want me to like him why now..?

This is the Obama who lied to you about telecomm immunnity, and about his election funding, and about the claim that he would join any union movement in trouble and wlak a picket line himself (total silence on WI).

War criminal, liar, willing tool of every establishment actor in the world. And you think he's doing a good job why now..?

You claim to want to talk policy, let's talk policy. What's different now than under Bush for another 4 years?

"What's different now than under Bush for another 4 years?"

We have a well spoken professional type president with a (D) in front of his name. Haven't you been paying attention?

"My wife recently steered me to Queers Against Obama:

http://www.gaysagainstobama.org/"

Did you ever think she was just praying you'd switch teams?

No I didn't think that actually. She mentors some sexual minority kids at the school where she works, which is how she found the site. Nice that you find that funny.

So, was this supposed to be some anti-gay slur, or just an attack on me for failing to worship High Holy Saviour Obama? It wouldn't be the first time Obama drones used homosexuals as a pawn in doing something awful.

Hilarious. Between this buffoon and poor spittle-flecked Angry Geometer up there, I can't imagine a better illustration not only of the point of my posting, but why I finally decided to head over to Rumproast to give these extraordinarily special liberals a satirical taste not only of their vicious callousness toward Bradley Manning but the 8th grade writing style that's the best they can muster. No insult intended to actual 8th graders, by the way, who at least have the excuse of being 14 years old.

I realized the satire would be entirely lost on people so dense (seriously, they should rename their blog No Comprendo). And it's not like they have consciences to shame either. But hey, I've always been quixotic that way.

Is "quixotic" a "comedy word"? Because it sure looks funny!

Man, they just keep tumbling out of that clown car.

Look, we really are grateful for the laughs y'all have unintentionally provided, and I realize there might still be a midget or hobo lurking in the backseat, but the circus is over now. Take care on the drive home.

The comments to this entry are closed.