Ag, ja hy dik'd it up again did he? Thanks for the correction Ship. | Submit your comments on this article | ||
| -Short Attention Span Theater- | ||
| Writer suffers from lack of self awareness | ||
| 2014-09-04 | ||
| It's like facial recognition technology: if the features match up, you conclude, "It's the same guy." Any programmer will tell you: don't trust to the infallibility of software.
See what I mean? The very slightest adjustment and it'll match the force that led to Thermidor and the Terror and the metric system. The Napoleonic wars may be upon us again. In both cases, we see an elite insisting on their "liberty," by which they mean the freedom to dominate. Worth noting: This jamoke was graduated from Harvard, the Comedy Central of the elites, from which nearly every elite who seeks to dominate discourse as well as individual freedom and choice matriculated. One man's liberty is another man's ruined lawn.
Citizens United was actually about freedom of speech, in which freedom of speech won a rare victory with the black robed Mandarins who ruled in its favor, which is intolerable to terminal fascists such as Andy. Back in the 1850s, the slaveholders insisted that their "liberty" meant that they had the right to take their human "property" anywhere in American territory, an insistence that swept aside the previously respected concerns of millions of their countrymen that there be regions of the country free of slavery. At issue was whether the states were (sovereign) states or provinces of a central government. Slavery was a symptom, not a cause. The politix of the period were pretty intricate, but it was Democrats--the same Dems we have now--versus the newly born Republican Party. In both cases, the use of the structures of American democracy was combined with a contempt for the democratic values that inspired our founders. Just like you and your fellow fascists are doing. Look into the mirror much, do you? Never having read the Federalist Papers, much less contemporary documents, the author can make the values that inspired our founders whatever he pleases. Nowadays, the Republicans have made a national effort to pass voter ID laws to address a non-existent problem of voter fraud-- a campaign that is itself a fraud whose transparent intent is to disenfranchise the vulnerable whose champions are the Republicans' opponents. To claim that voter fraud is non-existent in an age of 100%+ turnout in multiple areas, with people being jugged periodically for voting multiple times, is simple fraud. E pur se muove. Back in the years leading up to the Civil War, the slaveholders banned the distribution of anti-slavery writings, and sometimes suppressed anti-slavery talk by violence. Just as Citizens United sought to, and did resolve, to permit anyone to combine their resources to advertise their views. In both cases, the elites driving the polarization of the country justified their dominance by distorting, in belittling ways, the humanity of those they sought to exploit. "That's the guy!" Today's Republicans talk about the 47 percent, the half of the country they characterize as "takers," even though many of those 47 percent work multiple jobs just to make ends meet; and these Republicans vote to strip them of unemployment benefits, at a time of massive joblessness, in the mistaken belief that only desperation will get these lazy people to work. I think Republicans actually are talking about the 47 percent who did not vote for Barky. Back in the time of the Slave Power, the slaveholding class declared they were doing their black slaves a favor to discipline them into an ethic of work; freeing them would be cruel, the masters claimed, because those blacks were inherently too lazy and incompetent to survive on their own. In both cases, the idea of compromise became a dirty word, as the inflamed insistence on getting everything one's own way took hold of the inflamed side. Today's Republicans do not seek compromise, and the dynamics of the party are such that anyone who works toward compromise is demonized and run out of office by challenge from the more extreme, uncompromising wing of the party. Some Republicans do not seek to compromise on principles, and in fact seek out compromise from the left, which is never forthcoming. Back in the years leading up to the Civil War, the South's insistence on the unfettered expansion of their domain led to the overturning of the great Missouri Compromise, which had held the nation together for more than thirty years fracturing of the peace that instigated the return to the political arena of Abraham Lincoln, and set the nation on course to a bloody civil war. Shazam! In both cases, the powerful elite in the grip of that destructive force refused to accept that in a democracy sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, and sometimes you have to accept being governed by a duly-elected president you don't like. But enough about the Democratic elites... Being duly elected means your power is necessarily limited, which this current president and his allies do not accept, just like your description of slaveowners.. Today's Republicans have done everything they could to nullify the presidency of Barack Obama, whom the American people duly elected twice. Like no other opposition party in American history, they have refused to accept the temporary minority status to which American voters have consigned them. Blocking the president from performing the function for which the people hired him has been their top priority. As the Democrats had done during Dubya's term, your side will do should another Republican gain the White House. There's nothing horrifying here. Obstruction is the game of the game under the Hastert rule of legislating. Back on the eve of the Civil War, the Southerners -- who had disproportionately dominated the upper echelons of the national government from the time of its founding -- considered the election of Abraham Lincoln an intolerable insult, and promptly made a unilateral decision to break apart the Union; they then raised an army to defend that decision, rather than accept the outcome of the democratic process and regroup for the next election. Under a civil democratic rule, you still have the right to oppose policy at every turn you can. It's called civil rights. Election of anyone doesn't mean that the game ends there and then, and you have to accept edicts. The game just changed, and you and your fellow fascists do not like that part of it. I won't accept the edicts of a fascist anymore than you would of a Republican. And I am cool with that. As with facial recognition, the configuration of the features tells us, "This is the same ugly thing, come back again." Same owner, too, as it turns out. In my upcoming series, "Press the Battle," I will be expanding on the ways in which disturbing patterns match up between these two eras. In those later postings, it will also be explained how it is that such patterns can endure and re-emerge in a cultural system over the course of generations. Good for you. I will be waiting patiently to trash it. Suffice it to say for now that, in its re-emerged form, this pattern or force or spirit has retained its destructive nature. Back in the mid-19th century, it broke the nation apart and gave us a nightmarish Civil War. And in our times, it is damaging everything in American civilization that it can reach. | ||
| Posted by:badanov |
| #17 The usual attack approach of the left. Basically, this guy has turned the Republicans into the slavers (Democrats) of the pre-Civil War. This is not a particularly good approach to take since the slavers were the Democrats and KKK. The left is a one-trick pony, no matter how you dress it up. Their approach is to castigate, excoriate, and demonize their opponent. In general, if there is not something that is true, then they make it up (as was done with Mitt Romney). They elevate themselves by demonizing their opponents. They blame their opponents for what they do. A good example is what Debbie Wasserman tried to pull off with Governor Walker today. Essentially, she was trying to make Walker out as a Neanderthal woman-beater by describing him as someone who was dragging women around by their hair. Some of the more stupid will respond to this. Three lines of attack by the left are (1) you're stupid, (2) you're mean, and (3) you're corrupt if you don't agree with them. Usually, they end up calling their opponent a racist, anti-Semitic, a sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, islamaphobe, ya'll be put in chains, etc.--whatever isn't what they define as PC. Some stupid people will respond to the latter also. These people are the most tyrannically-minded of people. Don't wrestle in the mud with pigs as they like it--if you have to wrestle with them, figuratively let them have it quickly and emphatically. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-09-04 22:30 |
| #16 Seriously, though, I don't know why this writer is so worried as long as these "corportists" continue to support candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2014-09-04 16:05 |
| #15 Ag, ja hy dik'd it up again did he? Thanks for the correction Ship. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-09-04 16:00 |
| #14 There is only one Speaker Reid and he never was a Senator. Perhaps you mean Majority Leader. See Reid's Rules for info. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2014-09-04 15:52 |
| #13 Obamaphone, anyone? Or, how about we let you cross the border? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2014-09-04 14:41 |
| #12 ...this guy is starting with a lie at the core of his argument. That is a core statement about all progressive arguments and positions. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2014-09-04 13:30 |
| #11 Central falsehood: advertising buys elections. It may influence them, but it's not that foolproof, nor is it guaranteed to fool enough people, given that the internet can and will provide alternate channels for info, that's the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. If you are worried about low information voters then that is a different issue. the only way to buy an election is to buy the votes and pay off the voters. So this guy is starting with a lie at the core of his argument. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2014-09-04 10:18 |
| #10 Procopius2k Yep I was wondering when someone would mention that unions would have to be banned too. Although "our" imbecilic author would probably invoke the "exception cos I like what you're saying" rule. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2014-09-04 09:06 |
| #9 Easy on Speaker Reid please. He's come a "wong way." |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-09-04 09:03 |
| #8 With Citizens United, in our times, the corporatists have declared that their "freedom of speech" gives them the right to buy our elections, unfettered by any concerns about the rights of the average citizen to have an equal say in their government. Not to be confused with unionists who have in fact bought elections (right Mr Reid) unfettered by any concerns about the rights of the average citizen to have an equal say in their government. Best President and gaggle of Senators union money can buy! |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-09-04 08:49 |
| #7 Democrats were the ones who started a war after losing an election, and they were the ones who turned to violence again after the war. They ejected the legally elected representatives, threatened the lives of anyone who didn't vote Democrat, then instituted laws to guarantee they'd not face political competition for most of a century. Today they're no different. Their ideas are so horrible they have to lie and stifle anyone who tells the truth about them; their politicians are universally corrupt and ignorant. Just read the quoted piece to get an understanding how much they hate the thought of other people being allowed to speak to the people. The Democrats (and, sadly establishment Republicans) minimize Ted Kennedy -- who was not just a murderer, but also a traitor. He attempted (at the least) to coordinate with the Soviets to undermine President Reagan; the communications between them was uncovered after the Cold War. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2014-09-04 08:29 |
| #6 Go ahead Mike. Author award-winning author, political commentator, talk radio philosopher, and teacher Dr. Andrew 'the Bard' Schmookler would probably enjoy slipping away for a quick diaper change. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-09-04 07:48 |
| #5 ...I suppose it would be impolite to point out to this gentleman that the Slave Power was overwhelmingly Democrat.... Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2014-09-04 07:34 |
| #4 I would add that in my adult lifetime, the Democrats have made a legitimate compromise on an issue of substance exactly three times: 1. Clinton signing NAFTA 2. Clinton signing a Republican welfare reform bill 3. Clinton signing a (mostly) balanced Republican budget So in 30+ years, Democrats have compromised exactly three times. Every single other time they have defined compromise as Republicans coming 98-100% of the way towards the Democrat position. Thousands upon thousands of bills. This is the real "contempt for democratic values" which the author attempts to assign, wrongly, to the center/right. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2014-09-04 06:27 |
| #3 Why is it that only leftists believe that we elect an absolute dictator whose policies cannot be questioned when a Democrat ends up winning but a servant who must compromise when a Republican is victorious? Where was his article like this one when Bush was president and the left was savaging him at a level far greater than the center/right have ever attacked Obama? |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2014-09-04 05:33 |
| #2 Well B he does not know history - other than "if we had socialism back then we would not have all this evil shit now" and "if we get socialism now all the evil shit will stop" It's a good fisking but clueless writer will never see it, even if he/she does, will not absorb the lesson. Still, you do what you can.... |
| Posted by: Bov Flimbers 2014-09-04 04:14 |
| #1 considered the election of Abraham Lincoln an intolerable insult, and promptly made a unilateral decision to break apart the Union Interestingly, the author sees the voting of eleven [of 34] State legislative bodies as a unilateral action. History might take exception with that statement. After the unpleasantness, there were 36 states, although many in the failed confederacy would not regain representation for many years, with Georgia being evicted a second time. Opportunist gerrymandering as a 'spoil of war' so to speak. Federally appointed judges are now firmly in place to help things along and prevent States from overreach. [insert tongue I cheek] These former confederate states (not yet readmitted by 1868) did not participate in that election. In 1870 Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia were readmitted. Others were as follows, with qualification: July 24th 1866 -Tennessee is the 1st. June 22nd 1868 - Arkansas is the 2nd June 25th 1868 - Florida is the 3rd June 25th 1868 - Alabama is the 4th June 25th 1868 - Louisiana is the 5th June 25th 1868 - North Carolina is 6th June 25th 1868 - South Carolina (who started it all) was 7th (June 25th 1868 - GEORGIA FIRST readmitted) December 22nd 1869 - Second reconstruction for Georgia began ! (Kicked OUT !) January 27th 1870 - Virginia is the 8th February 23rd 1870 - Mississippi is the 9th March 30th 1870 - Texas is the 10th Mar. 30, 1870 - The 15th Amendment is added to the Constitution. GEORGIA READMITTED AGAIN -July 15th 1870 - Georgia is the 11th and last. Always the bad boy, Georgia went through Reconstruction twice! The United States government has never recognized the right of states to secede and considers the states to never have left the union during the American Civil War. Eviction by Washington yes; individual State legislative departure....never. The states were required to agree to Reconstruction before being permitted to send representatives to Congress again. Difficult to refuse, when voting rights, martial law, and food are used as weapons. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-09-04 02:31 |