I honestly wasn’t trying to game anything. It’s just that I felt John Kerry was such an irresponsible choice that I cast a vote for John Edwards in the belief that he would be marginally better, and knowing that a Democrat had a good chance of winning that year.
‘fraid RTFirefly was right on point. You’re just too fuckin’ partisan to realize anything other than your required talking points.
I’d tell you to grow a brain, but it’s way too late.
Yeah? You really believe that? Then you’re even dumber than I though.
Here, find your nearest Stars and Stripes piece of cloth (your bedcover fer instance) and Dictators Supported by the U.S. Government read that
I take it you’re into mantra’s. Hate to break it to you but they don’t mean shit – other than hideous repetition of course.
Which is rather worthless since we can’t live history over again and se ewhat kind of world someone other than the US would have come up with. Mind you, despite all your digs my way, I’m far from a “pinko commie” but I certainly don’t believe in unbridled capitalism either. Which, along with naked imperialism, is your nation’s current and rather clear policy. A declining “Democracy” at home imperialism at the point of a gun elsewhere.
Nowhere to go bt down from here. Perhaps we are both too old to see the outcome of our predictions, but they are there for all to see.
And finally, fuck you, you brainless Kool-Aid drinker.
As for Shodan’s “controversial” post, par for the course if you’ve read any of his previous OPed’s. A scumbag is a scumbag. And no doubt he is one fine example. Period.
Well, since you flashed the Black Doper bat-signal (in the shape of a raised fist), here I come…
I feel Limbaugh’s comment was stupid and crass. Is it racist? I dunno. Woe that I give Limbaugh the benefit of the doubt, but it’s hardly the worse thing he’s done. I’m curious how Obama feels about it, if he has a problem with it. I think it’s generally stupid and crass to invent cutesy names for aspects of other peoples’ identities. If a biracial person coins the term and uses it to refer to him or herself, whatever. I think it’s stupid, but at least there is an n of 1 to state it’s not bothersome.
I don’t refer to people with disabilities with cutesy names, nor LBGTQ folks, nor women. Hell, I tend to say “White male” instead of “Mr. Charley” or “The Man.” Because… well, it’s just stupid.
I’m in the heart of Obama fandom here in the People’s Republic of Cambridge. He went to school across Cambridge Common, and there are plenty of pumpers here. There is something fetishistic about some people’s adulation of Obama, and the folks I’m thinking of tend to be White. I might suspect that it’s just another stripe in their social justice gradebook, next to recycling, sponsoring a child in a Third World country, and shopping at Whole Foods. (I kid, this actually describes some folks that I’m quite fond of, and sometimes it’s fun to have a go at 'em.)
In my progressive community of African American education types, I think we’re all intrigued and interested in what he has to say, but I don’t know anyone who is a straight up Obama fan. It’s too damn early. He’s clean and articulate, but what else? Plus homeboy smokes. What is up with that?
I am a little amazed at myself not being more excited about BO. I was a Clinton/Gore nut back in the day… maybe because I saw them in person a few times. Again, this is the rather dull part of the campaign, but by the fall things should heat up and he’ll have to answer some tough questions. Maybe I’ll be politicrushing on him then, but the only candidate at this point that I’d run out and slap a t-shirt on over is the energy hog Al Gore, Jr. Come on, Al!
Uh, Red?..I don’t believe I’ve ever called you a pinko or a commie before. A hotheaded, occasionally incoherent, overly-macho douchebag perhaps, but not a pinko commie.
Besides, the plural of mantra takes no apostrophe. 
And btw, you might want to check that dictator link before you take your next drink…it’s sadly missing any dictators. (Lots of cool stuff about URLs and identifiers though.)
Now to be fair, I’ll readily admit the U.S. has occasionally embraced this or that odd dictator, but only to keep the country out of the hands of pinko commies or worse. Take for example the fall of the Shah of Iran, who we supported. I don’t think that even a churlish dolt such as yourself would contend that Iran’s populace and the world at large are better off now as a result of his demise. It was to forestall this sort of thing and worse that lay at the heart of U.S. involvement with less than savory heads of state in the past.
But you know, Red, deep down inside I think you may be a pretty good guy after all. I just think you let this stuff get to you too much. There has always been fucked-upedness of one kind or another going on in the world and it’s not likely to change anytime soon. There’s nothing to be accomplished by letting it drive you crazy.
That’s an awfully long-winded and slightly disingenuous way of saying “in our self-interest”, wouldn’t you say? Do you really believe that every time we have undertaken a military action in the last 50 years it has been for the benefit of the poor, misguided people who don’t know any better?
Look, I’m as big a homer as anybody else, but even I can admit to myself that we haven’t been on the side of the angels a good bit of the time.
An interesting thing about democracy is that when it is practiced the people get the government that they deserve. We have far too often made it a point to interfere in situations that we are supposed to be championing simply because we didn’t like the results. Unfortunately, our principles should dictate that it’s none of our affair and our likes and dislikes are irrelevant. Which is why I can’t get worked up over a guy like Hugo Chavez. Venezuela has exactly what they want, let them live with him. It’s none of my business.
Well, i’m not sure you’re asking the right question here.
It’s not “Is Iran and the world better off as a result of [the Shah’s] demise” (something which could quite readily be debated, anyway), but “Is Iran and the world better off as a result of his installation”?
After all, the US didn’t just “support” the Shah, they effectively installed him in power by supporting and helping to orchestrate the overthrow of Mossadegh, who was, in case you were unaware, an elected prime minister and head of the country’s first democratic government.
You look at the Ayatollah and the mullahs, and at all the chaos in Iran now, and use it as an excuse to say “Well, the US supported the Shah, and he wasn’t as bad as the current mob.” But you completely neglect to take into consideration the role that the overthrow of Mossadegh and the rule of the Shah might have had in fomenting and strengthening support for the radicals like Khomeini and the current crop of mullahs.
And this, in a nutshell, is the problem of nation-building. Even if you’re willing to completely disregard the moral and ethical arguments against it, there are still dangers from a purely pragmatic point of view. Even if you believe (i don’t) that orchestrating coups and overthrows against governments you don’t like is a reasonable foreign policy, you can never really be sure of the long-term consequences of your actions. Sure, the guy you install might be a mild improvement over his predecessor (something i would contest in many cases where the US has intervened, like Iran), but even if he is, your intervention could set in motion a set of developments that, in the long run, leads to a situation even worse than the one you were trying to fix in the first place.
Disingenuous how? I think it’s very clear that that these things were done in the spirit of self-interest. Is there any country in the world that puts other countries’ interests before its own? Clearly not, so why do so many around here seem to think that the U.S. should?
However, the fact that we’ve acted out of self-interest doesn’t mean that no outside good has come of it, or that bad things haven’t been staved off because of it. Again, I would point to Iran as an example.
Of course not! (Which is probably why I never said such a thing to begin with.) 
Well, it’s all in one’s perspective, I suppose. We tend to see what we look for.
And this is apropos of what, exactly? There are countries all over the world where things are going on that we don’t like. We aren’t marching on them and we aren’t marching on Venezuela.
And now, since we’re getting into an area that we could discuss all night, I must bid you adieu as it’s late and I have an early day tomorrow.
Goodnight.
Sure, it sounds crazy now, but maybe after the Democrats lose the White House again in 2008 you can all look back and say… remember those craaaaazy posts **I Love Me, Vol. I **made back in 2006 and 2007? Now I see that he was right! **Evan Bayh **or Tom Vilsak could have actually won the damn thing, but as soon as they dropped out and left only the black dude and the white chick–both with names that make people uneasy----- oh yeah… and also that empty headed, blustery former lawsuitin’ chap… wellllll…
…nobody but I Love Me missed them at the time… “So long, suckers!” was the general sentiment…
but as soon as the moderate, Midwestern, former-Governors (you know–the kind of Democrats that actually could be elected because Republicans can actually entertain at least the idea of them sitting in the Oval Office? ) dropped out, it was ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL over.
There’s perfectly valid reasons to vote for a party and not a person. I’m independent/liberal/libertarian myself, but I respect anyone who votes straight ticket based on principles. There’s nothing “stupid” about it, but I’m sure the condescension is appreciated by the poster that’s directed to.
I’m still looking for a clue as to what a “Hamerican” is.
If we use terms like “halfrican”, what’s next? Mulatto? Quadroon? Octoroon? I think the n-word is so universally reviled that even blowhards like Limbaugh dare not use it. But “halfrican” is a nice little code word to attack someone about their race without appearing to do so.
Alliteration.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s because you don’t think he’s black enough, Hippy. I have it all figured out, you see. Your excitement for Clinton is due to him playing the sax on Arsenio. That makes him black in your eyes whether you want to admit it or not. You like Gore because…well, he was Clinton’s homeboy as his VP and thus black by association. You’ll probably vote for HRC because she’s shown that she’s down for the cause by marrying a black man like Clinton.
Does Obama play the sax and live in Harlem? Sure he smoked weed, but is he married to a white woman who is down for the cause? No and no. Hence your lack of excitement for him.
Someone needs to pay me to write articles for Salon.
But seriously, I share your observations. Obama is getting an inordinate amount of praise and this praise does seem to be coming overwhelmingly from Mr. Char–I mean, white folks. Black people actually may not be as jeeped up about Obama because of this fuss. It’s not that we don’t recognize his star power and talents (because I know I do). I think it has something to do with how unprecedented all this mainstream love is for a black politician whose platform is not based on denigrating other blacks. It makes us want to pay extra close attention to him before jumping on the bandwagon. But from what I can tell, most black people view Obama favorably and they want him to do well in this election. They are just not ready to annoint him with a crown just yet.
Ummm, dude? My comment was specifically comparing Bush’s mistakes that his supporters overlook, and Clinton’s mistakes that his supporters overlook.
So you can take your attempt to turn my comment into a slap at the U.S. role in the world before January 20, 2001, and stick it up your ass.
As far as ‘fucking up the world’ is concerned, let’s see: Iraq’s a far worse mess than when we intervened, we’re at risk of losing Afghanistan to the Taliban, we backed up Israel while it bombed the shit out of Lebanon on account of the activity of one of its constituent groups (greatly weakening that government), we let North Korea build several plutonium bombs, terrorism around the world is up, not down, since we invaded Iraq - even if you exclude Iraq and Afghanistan - and that’s included some terrorist attacks in places like Europe and India, and we may have finally settled on a larger strategy in the Middle East: a region-wide use of radical Sunnis, including fellow travelers of AQ, to check Shi’ite radicalism (Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran).
Oh, did I mention that because of our involvement in Iraq, we don’t seem to be able to devote any military resources to, say, Darfur? Or that our policies have cost us the trust of most of our longtime allies, let alone the governments in more troubled parts of the world?
Yeah, we’ve missed a few countries, I’ll admit. But as a quick summary, rather than a detailed itemization, ‘fucking up the world’ is a pretty apt description of what Bush and Cheney have done in the past six years.
I think it’s a lot simpler than that. I think people want another JFK. Young, good looking, idealistic, ready to sweep the old ways, old corruption, old scars out of office.
We need a new Camelot now, as much as ever, and Obama seems ready to give it to us. It’s not about color of skin, but content of character, to use the old saw. At least, that’s how I see it. Or I hope I see it.
Now, maybe I’m a dreamer. (But I’m not the only one.) But reform movements come and go in politics, and it looks like this is the right man for the right time.
Yes. He’s very close to feeling like the opposite of George W. Bush. I don’t know what the reality is, but that’s what the feeling is.
All else being equal (which it isn’t), I’d like to see someone elected who breaks down a barrier–someone whose election means one less thing for the talking heads to claim prevents a candidate from being elected, someone who can help erase the notion that you gotta be male, white, and oh-so-Christian to be president.
Looks like while blacks aren’t yet ready to anoint Obama with a crown (which is fine by me), their support is shifting in his direction:
I doubt it, but I don’t really care. Anyone who walks into a voting booth with no intention of investigating the candidates or their view and just pulls the lever on the left or right all the way down is acting stupidly.
Okay okay, they are acting stupidly IMO.
I’ve learned to never underestimate the stupidity of Republicans. Not that Democrats or Libertarians are geniuses by default, but Republicans tend to reach levels of clueless imbecility that leave the others behind.
You miss the point. By knowing someone is running from Party X, you know a good deal about them. You know fair amount about their views. Admittedly, it would be much better to investigate the individual and how they differ from your stereotype of Party X, but simply knowing Party X is in fact a good deal of information.
The Late, Great Molly Ivins was quite willing to criticize Democratic stupidity. But, after covering a convention of the Texas Republicans, she “ran screaming back to the Democrats.”