« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
In which NC Steve and a few others reveal themselves to be Fascists.
Yeah, that's right...I said fascist. Fascist, fascist, fascist!Anyone who advocates silence instead of discussion, censorship over free speech should be described as nothing less.
NC Steve, Donna G, Jason Miller, Tena...and all you other cult freaks with "hussein" in your moniker! If you choose to silence yourselves over the next four months...knock yourselves out. I prefer you didn't. I prefer that if Obama says or does something you are upset about... say it.
Are you bugged about his current FISA stand? Say it. Not happy about his apparent pandering to the religious right? Say it. Don't like what you hear from others...talk about it. But telling others to shut up for a few months only makes you look like idiots. Telling Josh Marshall to not print bad things about your candidate is way beyond insulting. It's undemocratic. Not to mention childish and stupid! Don't be a stupid fuckwit. Don't be a fascist. It's really unbecoming.
Now, in an effort to show I don't comply with authoritarian mindsets... Here's one for ya: Obama is a typical, pandering, calculating politician. Deal with it.
Oh...and I intend to vote for him. I intend to vote even though my state will go overwhelmingly for him. I plan to register my vote no matter what. But, he is what he is. And I plan on letting people know that, as often as possible in the next four months!
Ain't democracy great?!
Oh, one last thing to all the folks mentioned above...the only thing that really need be said to people with a fascist mindset: Eat shit! ;^}
Comments (137)
Alas, you miss the forest for the trees.
I have not one problem with bitching to or about Obama. But when the levels get to the point where people are saying they're not going to vote for him, well, then we get President McCain.
I fully agree with NC Steve. Sorry.
Go ahead and complain away. Complain loud and proud and to anyone who will hear it.
And when McCain takes office in January, then what?
How've the last seven years worked out for (the) US?
July 8, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Joanne:
I don't know a single regular or irregular poster at the Cafe who has announced his or her intention to vote for John McCain. I haven't even read that anyone will stay home. And, frankly, if you can smoke one of 'em out who passed me by, in my world I'd like to read what he or she has to say before I burn him or her at the stake. Or, we could do it Tena style, who is so bitter about one blogger criticizing Obama's ridiculous FISA position, that she announced, with accolades from some other regular members of the circle jerk, that he should perform an unnatural sex act with a rusty chainsaw. Groovy.
And loki, chill out, we will write regardless of what folks say. We are loyal Democrats, we are progressives, some of us have even been around the block. Frankly, I think it's cute that people get so worked up about people exercising free speech. Always remember that this is nothing more than a sandbox and, next time I get angry, remind me about that too.
July 9, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear ya. Thanks. Will do.
July 9, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you referring to some recent TPM drama (a specific post by one of those that you mentioned), or are you referring to those posters' general attitude?
July 8, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/oh-my-dear-sweet-mother-of-god.php
Don't know that it qualifies as drama, really.
July 8, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh, so this is a fuck-you, I-do-what-I-want post? Makes sense.
July 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
July 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with loki, however, that it's silly for us to censor ourselves on this blog because we fear that dissent will somehow give ammunition to Republicans.
The audience here is pretty small, and pretty full of its own opinions, and the outside world really doesn't care whether there's "chum" in our comment threads or not. I hang out here because I learn something from the discussion, not as a form of political action or agitprop. When I want to engage in political action, I phonebank, or talk to family members who aren't political junkies.
But of course the "fascist" stuff is goofy.
July 8, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I was thinking more in terms of the enthusiastic embrace of the nitwits who decided to start a group on Obama's own website. Oh well, they accomplished so much, I guess it was worth feeding a full week (so far) of MSM "flipflopper" and "disorganized backbiter" narratives.
July 8, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. About that group, I largely agree with you.
July 8, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no way the "small audience" around here keeps TPM's doors open. Fortune 500 companies to pay to advertise to a couple thousand political junkies. Trust me, the audience is much larger than the regulars you see around here.
July 9, 2008 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair point Jason. But what do we do about it? As you know, or I think I've written this to you, I am absolutely convinced that Obama benefits from barbs from his loyal left flank. It makes him look more electable to the rest of the electorate. Frankly, I think the campaign knows it better than I do and I think that's what a lot of last week's pronouncements are all about.
July 9, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. What bslev said. Also, Jason: I agree that TPM itself has a big audience. Reader blogs have a much smaller one, though of course you're right that there are lurkers.
But the key thing is that it's an audience of political junkies who have heard all these arguments before. No one is losing their virginity. "Oh my god, you mean liberal bloggers are unhappy about FISA? I . . . I . . . just don't know what to think about Obama now!"
It's also not a very persuadable audience. And most importantly of all, the pleasures of the Cafe are killed when we treat it as a channel for "messaging" instead of a conversation.
July 9, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your main premise, though I actually don't think they are only hitting the front pages of the site.
The Café seems more interesting and reflective of wider views of the electorate. The Café is also more peer-based political commentary and would be my guess to where the vast majority if lurker traffic hangs out.
I doubt anyone at TPM will confirm or deny that supposition; however, since they are perhaps the only place that has figured out an effective way that we can be unpaid "talent" for their wider audience to read and enjoy.
I also don't think the lurking audience are necessarily the political junkies. By definition that is us. I think they come for different views than can be found in the corporate media and because we are more fun. Same reason they watch Jon Stewart.
Brilliant strategy for TPM, by the way. Now Josh needs a kick-ass website to better facilitate it. :O)
July 9, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually agree with this as well. I think it benefits Obama if both his campaign and his more fair-minded supporters hold the Raging Left to higher standards.
I am just trying to figure out a way to quiet some of the more rancorous trolls and wounded lefties, so as not to provide any more fodder for the "Trouble in Obamaland" meme in the corporate media.
It is a fine balancing act to be sure.
July 9, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the "Raging Left" that's "Raging", Jason. I appreciate the cheap-shot labeling mentality, you are a dying breed in your own "movement"... not to mention completely wrong in your classification.
July 9, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, you take comments clearly not designed to describe you and make them a personal insult. There is nothing I can do about your sense of victimization.
July 9, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
...his more fair-minded supporters hold the Raging Left...
And you have the chutzpah to whine about Kool-Aid. Unbelievable.
July 10, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not so sure the "fascist stuff" is all that goofy, but it is right in line with the Communist reactions to overnight changes in ideology. It's what ideologues operating in a tyrannical environment do when the central source of ideology announces a change. We are all aware how the European Communist Parties immediately changed message when the Central Committee in Moscow changed theirs.
The alternative is clearly free speech with the ability to criticize and evaluate the new messages. That is Democracy as opposed to tyranny. Unfortunately, it is also the fool Joe Lieberman supporting McCain.
Unfortunately there is a large segment of the media who opposes the Democrats reflexively, and such free speech does give them a lot to work with. Nedra Pickler at Associated Press is working again, for example, and has several associates working with her to defeat Obama. If there are any high-profile neutrals in the media now, I am unaware of them. Though the McClatchy News Service might be considered such.
So do we progressive Democrats tyrannically whip our troops in line in defense, or do we maintain free speech among ourselves and hang the occasional negative results? After 2000 and 2004, I am leaning towards the whip as opposed to the freedom. But I prefer true free speech and democracy. It just may not be possible.
If McCain comes even close to winning, as rotten a candidate as he is, then I'll go for the tyrannical whip in the future. War is not won by armies that vote on strategy, as anyone who has read of the anarchists fighting when an dhow they wanted to in the Spanish Civil War will recognize.
The only real question is whether we are in an election in a democracy, or if the election is merely a relatively bloodless form of civil war similar to the U.S in the 1830's, 40's and 50's before the military portions of the disagreement broke out. If you read Sean Wilentz' book "The Rise of American Democracy" you will see a lot of similarities today with the battle of the southern Slave Owners attempt to take over the Federal government and the rise of today's conservatives.
There are still two dominant cultures in America, and they are still at loggerheads. (Interestingly, after the Depression, WW II and the Civil Rights Movement, the party labels have switched.) Can we afford free speech while the conservatives strive for totalitarian power? Can we defeat the conservatives and their controlled media without at least temporarily sacrificing free speech?
That's the question. One indicator - how truly damaging IS Joe Lieberman?
July 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
First let's all understand what a fascist is: ( because I don't think you do.
Some how I don't see the folks you call out fitting the definition.
While I absolutely agree dissent is healthy. I also will support some one else choosing to focus on electing a candidate and thinks the whining is counter productive. However what I will not do is call someone a fascist because they disagree with me or you.
Finally I am glad you think yourself so pure that you can afford to call others out.
July 8, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "whining" is coming from pussified dems who are scared to criticize a pussified stance from our candidate. It is the "pussification" of the democratic party that loses elections.
July 9, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great. "Vote for Us! Our candidates are pussies!" There's a bumper sticker for you.
July 9, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Pussified" ???
Like the cat?
July 9, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
this post furthers the dialog in new and exciting ways
July 8, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I bring some chum, will that help? You know... since we're reduced to eatin' shit, and all. Demosaur, you go easy. Share.
FREE CHUM!!!! GET YER SUM!
I wait. Silent. Rod & reel ready. Staring into the abyss.
Of somethin'.
July 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the fascist epithet... the last refuge of an angry little mind.
July 8, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really should be careful with the term "fascist." It doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means.
For an excellent read on the word "fascism" and it's (ab)use, please see David Neiwert (I can't find the particular post that I'm remembering from him, sadly). Using "fascism" at the wrong time or inappropriately erodes it's very definition, and makes it harder for people to identify real fascism when they see it.
Some guy on the internet telling you to shut up is not fascism. The police telling you to shut up, and then beating you after complying, is.
July 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another thread in praise of:
Friendly Fire.
How dare you object to someone taking shots at Senator Obama after they have told you they are still on his side. Friendly Fire does no harm. Pat Tilman still lives. Right?
Others; myself included, believe that Friendly Fire is often more lethal than hostile fire. You can fire back at hostile fire, but if you fire back at the bastards on your own team that are back shooting you, then you are acting like a fascist, according to their fantasy rules of engagement.
Last week John McCain traveled to Panama and promised to ship out as many of the remaining American Blue Collar Manufacturing jobs as he could to Panama. He openly declared war on American Labor, but Senator Obama could not fire back, because for the entire week a shower of his so called Netroots supporters had him pinned down with massive bombardments of their Friendly Fire.
All Senator Obama could do was hunker down, because he could not return fire like he could at income hostile fire.
Last week his Netroot Friends ran interference for John McCain, while he went abroad and declared war on American Labor.
That is right folks: The Netroots crowd exist in a fantasy realm where Friendly Fire is a kind and gentle way to communicate with your friend, and Pat Tillman still lives.
No need to duck Senator Obama. It is just Friendly Fire, and it wont hurt a bit, or help arm your enemies.
July 8, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!-- Leave Brittany alone!"
If you are taking Friendly Fire, it means you are standing in the wrong position.
July 9, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama could not fire back, because for the entire week a shower of his so called Netroots supporters had him pinned down with massive bombardments of their Friendly Fire.
Which he could have easily avoided if he hadn't made such a monumental error in judgment on FISA in the first place.
Amazing how that works, eh.
July 9, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: Not Panama. I meant Columbia.
July 8, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colombia?
July 9, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee you're absolutely right. How terrible of President Gore to ignore the FISA law on the basis of an imagined loophole, create the capability to tap all of our communications and not tell anybody what he's doing, override Congress with signing statements, ignore habeus corpus, lie us into an illegal war, and generally wipe his ass with the Constitution for the last eight years.
I was just blind. The pure people tried to warn me that he was just another corporate shill, Tweedle-dee to Bush's Tweedle-dum. I should have listened to them when they joined into what I now, in hindsight, see was a stunningly accurate MSM narrative about him.
Yes, if only I'd known what a fascist Gore would turn out to be, I'd have protected my perfect moral integrity, complained loudly at his every pronouncement, and voted for Nader like all the cool, smart people did. What's the worst thing that could of happened? Its not like the other guy could have possibly been this bad.
July 8, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Face it... you are what you are Steve. It will color all my readings of you from this point forward. You want silence...no discussion. This is authoritarian type thnking at best.
July 9, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I am a private citizen requesting that other private citizens exercise some tactically motivated self-restraint in the exercise of their precious and inalienable right of free speech. I am asking people to consider that winning this election--and ensuring that Democrats pick the next round of federal judges--is a lot more important to the preservation of our Constitutional rights than futile spleen-venting over this bill they're voting on as we squabble.
I'm requesting, that is, that they seriously consider the possibility that by feeding the hackneyed perception about Democrats or liberals being disorganzed, squabbling whiners, they are basically making themselves the Republicans' useful idiots.
You have the right to burn flags as a form of political protest (as long as you do it safely, of course). I will preserve, defend and protect your right to do that with my life, along with my rather inconsequential fortune and my infrequently used and not-so honor. But if you choose to exercise your freedom of expression in that manner, I have the right to exercise my freedom of expression to suggest, private citizen to private citizen, that such speech is disasteriously counterproductive. I even have the right to strongly, even profanely, suggest and that you should cut it the hell out if you're really interested in accomplishing your stated goals.
And here's the important part. If you disagree with what I'm saying, you can ignore me without fear because I'm not the boss of you and have no desire to be the boss of you. If beyond merely ignoring my advise, you also choose to respond, you can do so without fear of retribution because I'm not the government. I'm just some schmoe with an Internet connection. Even if you chose to express your disagreement by lashing out with ad hominems like a sullen, hormone-addled teenager with pretensions of political sophistication, I would never be in favor of a law to prevent people from making fools of themselves. And most important of all, I would never, ever advocate sending leather-clad government goons to drag you out of your house in the middle of the night and disappear you into a gulag or a mass grave somewhere.
July 9, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Dude,"
You're asking people to shut up. That is fascist thinking any way you cut it. Couch that in whatever way you feel is necessary for you to look youself in the mirror each morning...fine. But you are advocating silence over discussion. Period. I think you are a fascist. Just my opinion, though. I could be wrong.
July 9, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong you are!
July 9, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right you are!
July 9, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Confused I is!
July 9, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No you aren't.
July 9, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Loki's point is that we should not shut each other up. We should speak the truth in our hearts. That's how I heard him on that last thread.
July 8, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
er, truths in our heart.
edit.
July 8, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And my suggestion, phrased as a request, albeit a strongly worded one, was that we keep our eyes on the big picture and, individually, make a personal decision to exercise a little temporary self-restraint. That was the truth in my heart. For which I got called a fascist.
Which is fair enough, I suppose, given my oblique reference to unnamed and unspecified Democrats who could behave like "whiny-ass self-absorbed, tunnel-visioned assholes."
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for a book burning and I have to stop and pick up my new jackboots on the way. (Hate to trade in the old ones. Those things are so uncomfortable until you get them broken in I probably won't be join in the Jew-kicking after the bonfire.)
July 8, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, damn!
The Tribe of Heinz Ketchup should not be ripped apart, NCSteve. I truly hope it will not happen.
How I feel about this, I expressed on
your thread which spawned Loki's diatribe. And yes, "fascist" is too harsh and undeserving. You have not muzzled anyone. On the other hand, I also understand the passion on the other side, given my other half spouts the same stuff.
I think they and we are talking past one another. They are enraged that the lobbyists are going to celebrate tomorrow. We think that's short sighted. *Sigh*
I hope there is room for them to express (a bit more mutedly perhaps, Loki?) and for us to still win.
I have not been able to understand how they don't get that in the current state of affairs, a campaign can be meme-killed.
They don't understand why we would, as good liberals, give up any rights to speak up.
And there you have it.
July 9, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Loki is a troll.
"We should speak the truth in our hearts."
How sweet.
Too bad his/her heart is full of vile and hatred.
July 8, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Loki criticizes he is speaking truth, and should never be challenged. When some one criticizes him, then they are not speaking truth, they are just being fascists, and should eat shit. That is the gospel according to Loki.
All hail Loki; the one and only dispenser of Truth Speak.
July 8, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Do not challenge the anti-fascist mindset... or you will die!
July 8, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loki.
Damn fine post. Though I believe the proper term is "fucktard" - not "fuckwit."
Jest sayin'.
July 8, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link to a definition of fuckwit:
http://www.fuckwit.info/whatis.htm
Loki, you seem to have a pot/kettle sort of thing going on here.
July 8, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am all set to be called all kinds of names...so be it.
I don't mind Obama's 'redefining' of his Iraq position. I don't have any problem with his statements on the faith based stuff.
BUT
I have a big problem with ANY politico who would be willing to 'compromise' away any of our Constitutional rights. I supported him in the primaries and I WILL STILL VOTE FOR HIM in November...an R will never be an option for me. But his FISA position stinks and is one I COMPLETELY disagree with. I will not stop criticizing him for taking it. It represents 'old school' power politics and flies in the face of 'change we can believe in'. But it is not just Obama I am unhappy with on FISA. Pelosi, Reid and every Dem who supported 'The Compromise' have excused Bush for all the laws he broke over the last 8 years. Supporting the American people and our rights is something I look at as a 'character issue'. The R's have shown that they will piss all over the constitution for partisan political reasons...I really thought the D's would at least try to put a stop to that instead of saying 'carry on'.
July 9, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seriously have no clue how anything is done in Washington and have no historical perspective on this legislation, used by both democratic and republican presidents since 1978. This bill granted immunity for something companies are already immune to and made implicit some court checks that were implied before, though clearly is a stop-gap measure and can be violated by the president if he so chooses. Just like he has for the last 7 years.
Perfect compromise? No, not by a long shot. The best we can do until after the election? Quite possibly. The worst we could do? Not if the other shit we have seen is any indication. In keeping with Barack's character as stated in his books and speeches and policy positions and legislative victories? Absolutely.
You are misinformed about Barack's Iraq position, which hasn't changed in the last 18 months. It is also imminently sensible as it doesn't rely on the guesses of a candidate to make ultimatums a president might not be willing to fill due to changing circumstances.
Do you think pulling out of Iraq is like ending the company picnic?
It's no wonder we get called fascists for calling you naive. Depending on how you respond to this comment, you may have to go on the Troll Watch-list. This sort of Friendly Fire (Thanks Liam!) is misinformed drivel that needs at least a polite (or not so polite) debunking or it is a neocon disinformation campaign.
Either way, my responses will be the same. Moderate at first, following escalating levels of sarcasm, irony and insult. Fight fire with fire. The best defense if a great offense.
July 9, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...I have no idea how things is Washington work? I had no idea.
Secondly while the author of this might have used the word 'fascist' I didn't. LOL...a troll watch list for someone who has supported every D since I became eligible to vote and pulled the lever for Carter? Hmmmm...ok, lol.
I didn't criticize Obama's on Iraq for exactly the reason you said. I characterized his position as a redefinition very tongue in cheek. But we get back to the 4th amendment. You can spin it anyway you'd like to. The 4th amendment has been under assault by El Presidente and the junta for the last few years and the D's had a chance to do something to stop it and didn't. And my comment about 'character' wasn't directed at Obama's character as a 'person'...it was about his character as a 'politician'.
First time I have been accused of being a neocon though. Do neocons really want to redistribute wealth down to the masses through socialistic programs and stop American politicians imperial tendencies?
July 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, every president since John Adam has broken the Fourth Amendment. Cops have violating the fourth amendment like a drunk prom date for at leas the last 60 years. This is not a new issue and is certainly nothing Barack can fix until he is president.
Don't you think holding Barack accountable for not having the power of a president as a candidate for that office is a little unreasonable? Don't you think that perhaps a little more perspective on this would be warranted? Doesn't it seem likely that he can have a contrary opinion to yours and still not be a typical politician?
A lack of reading comprehension may be why you don't understand Barack's very nuanced and sensible positions. When I use words like "may" and "or" and "perhaps" I am admitting the possibility that you are simply uniformed and not necessarily a neocon troll. I am setting up a comparison and contrast structure to provide political commentary.
Here's my point, slowed down for easier consumption:
Your Concerned Democratic Supporter bit sounds suspiciously like RNC talking points is my main point and the response is the same, whether you are truly a concerned, though naive, democrat or have more nefarious ends in mind.
July 9, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Since Adams?
Well that is all fine and dandy but never before has legislation been before Congress that would make spying without cause on the American people permissable under the law.
Yeah I look at nuances. Including little details like that gem. But I can almost imagine your reply now 'what the hell are you getting so worked up about? It is only the silly/insignificant 4th amendment'.
And again I am not singling out Obama. My beef is with every politician that support this abomination of a bill. I know the R's will support it because of their love of 'police state' tactics so they are a totally lost cause, I wouldn't waste my breath. The D's though...well, this is new territory for them. And while Obama can't change it on his own hopefully he will have the power to do something about it in the near future. So what he says about it has more importance than just any rank and file D.
And your continued 'troll' accusations do give merit to Loki's point. I won't go as far as calling you a 'fascist' but you are trying to stifle debate, based on some 'for the good of the party' ideology, which is a tactic I normally see out of conservatives. We are supposed to just 'believe' that when in power the D's will do all the right things even when they say their positions are to the contrary? I hate to say it that is what the R's said about the Iraq ivansion..."believe us Saddam has WoMD, so support the war or be labeled an anti-American terrorist sympathizer". And to me that is just like you saying 'you need support every position Obama takes and any criticism means you are a closet republican'.
So, hypothetically, if Obama attacks Roe next are we supposed to look at the 'nuance' him doing that and realize even though he said it he really didn't mean it? I can let A LOT of stuff slide. I will never let anything slide that involves our constitutional rights. That is a slippery slope and once the rights are gone we will never get back to the top of that hill.
July 9, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
See reductio ad absurdum below. You are imagining excuses for an argument I never made.
Let me repeat that in case you missed: This "slippery slope" was something that was passed in 1978 and has been in use ever since. Fourth amendment violations that have routinely upheld by the Supreme Court - such as sobriety check points and airport security. Guess who determines what is or isn't Constitutional? Right. The Supreme Court.
Should this legislation go down in flames not a single thing has changed in the government's "legal" right to spy on the phone calls and communications of foreigners. This legislation updates already existing law. How do you not get that?
What about any of this is so hard to get?
FINALLY. ONE MORE TIME. READ MY "LIPS" NOW. I AM GOING TO SLOW IT DOWN..... (Sorry to shout, but you seem easily distracted by pretty baubles of fake rage.)
I said it is very HARD TO DISTINGUISH between trolls and naive simpletons such as yourself.
I DID NOT call you a troll.
If you want to be treated with respect, perhaps you could start by actually commenting to the substance of what I write rather than your imagined persecution for the inability to reason that clearly inhibits your thinking processes.
July 9, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I DID NOT call you a troll.
Right.
You called him either a troll (unless you care to dispute the distinction between that and "someone with more nefarious ends in mind") ora naive simpleton.
Considering you're someone who professes outrage over the use of terms like "Obamabot" and "Kool-Aid", you ain't got a leg to stand on.
If you want to be treated with respect, perhaps you could start by actually commenting to the substance of what I write rather than your imagined persecution for the inability to reason that clearly inhibits your thinking processes.
Jeebus, you really need to look in the mirror on occasion.
Still waiting for you to substantiate your baseless claim of "outright lies", btw. The crickets will wait.
July 10, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's time to call out one of Jason's favorite rhetorical moves.
It's the endless variation, when confronted with someone who dares to disagree with him, of the same question: "Are you evil or just stupid?"
And he does it over and over and over again.
This, in Jason's world, is what passes for argument.
July 10, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mean to be a wise-ass, but where in the Constitution do you find a woman's right to choose? Penumbra's my friend, interpretations, etc., are how the sausage is made in America.
July 9, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't find one but the SCOTUS did. And given numerous opportunities to change their minds they haven't. So I view it as a constitutional right now. Not as explicity stated in the constitution as the rights given to us by 4th amendment though.
Don't mind me...judgement has been passed, I am just a simpleton.
(now exiting stage left off of this cluterf&*ck of a thread)
July 9, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Is there a point in here that I am missing? Bueller?
July 9, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk of keeping quiet and talk of watch lists. Way to prove you don't have fascist leanings there Jason.
Comical. Sad, but comical.
July 9, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your paranoid fantasies of persecution lead to the very acts of fascism that you decry with each and every comment you make.
When we ask and then plead and then finally have to scream for civility, for a more nuanced tone and a more reasonable debate style, you accuse us of being fascist and shout down our criticism.
Sounds like the liberal equivalent of McCarthyism. Is that the company you keep? Shouting down honest progressives as fascists for having the temerity to have an opinion.
Apparently Norse "gods" don't have a sense for irony.
July 9, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This bill granted immunity for something companies are already immune to
Riiight. Our Great Legal Scholar has Spoken. Simple as that. Nothing to see here, move on, that whole immunity thing was already there.
Funny, though. You'd think AT&T would have raised that argument before Judge Walker, when it moved to dismiss the case against it back in 2006. Open and shut!
And, if they had made it, that Judge Walker would have said, "Oh, gee, why didn't you say so? Case dismissed!"
But, strangely enough, he didn't.
Instead, he wrote:
July 10, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did someone say bonfire and book burning? Sweet.
July 9, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Loki, you are of course exempted from any request to hold ones criticism untill the Wednesday after the first Monday in november. YOur criticism will surely help Sen. Obama's campaign more than the advocacy of any ten normal people.
July 9, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear.
Honestly, I think this is true pretty broadly about the netroots, and we'd probably all be more relaxed if we realized it.
When liberal bloggers complain that Obama is tacking to the center, it really doesn't hurt him much in the general election; in fact, when all is said and done it probably helps him establish his independence from the "party line."
Remember the New Yorker cover where Manhattan covers 2/3 of the page? We get a similar view of the world from the blogosphere.
July 9, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm always suspicious of arguments that give me permission to do whatever I wanted to do in the first place.
July 9, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it helps. NC....
DON'T DO IT! FOR GOD'S SAKE! YOU'LL KILL US ALL!
as you were.
July 9, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, now I need to get into the middle of this shitstorm.
I have a major problem with this article. I think it's basically an enablement of the very targets it purports to attack, because it validates and justifies their methods.
The problem I have is that it employs the same negative-branding tactics that the political loyalists of all the major parties use. Although superficially this article lays down a logical basis for its claims, its obvious intent is not to develop the logic. Its obvious intent is simply to label and villify people rather than present valid arguments as to why their arguments are invalid.
I don't like this and find it to be a dishonest way to do business even where I generally agree with the poster's premise -- which, if we take away all the inflammatory labels, I do in this case.
Please, everybody, understand that we can be passionate and civil simultaneously. We can throw bombs at each others' ideas without trying to explode each others' personalities.
July 9, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
July 9, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard writes: " Although superficially this article lays down a logical basis for its claims, its obvious intent is not to develop the logic. Its obvious intent is simply to label and villify people rather than present valid arguments as to why their arguments are invalid."
Tankard, I so agree with what you wrote.
On the thread that sparked this latest example of loki tossing a villification bomb, as well as on an earlier thread, in which loki came on, threw a bomb, then left..... I see a pattern of loki [at least recently] behaving like a sniper. Throw out some ugly mean judgment, then scurry away.
***Please note that once loki posted this reader's post, then loki disappeared.***
Here is loki's behavior on NC Steve's post in which loki wrote, "To NC Steve. A big hearty FUCK YOU!" and soon after, loki wrote in response to raider99, "Blow me."
No matter what earnestness and care another put into their comment, loki chose throwing another bomb [and leaving] rather than engaging in discussion.
"loki has become a pathetic troll, running loki fingers down a 'virtual' blackboard.... to give loki some negative jollies before loki sneaks out of the 'room' just as quickly. loki has fallen fast and far." -----
The above is what I wrote on the thread that sparked this one. Reading this post and seeing the pattern continue, I think I was accurate in what I wrote.
July 9, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, just to make sure I get absolutely everyone pissed off at me (I'm not happy until univerally reviled), I see the same excremental quality flowing in both directions.
Not to speak for anyone else, but I'm sure that an important reason why Loki (I had a cat with that name once) comes at you folks this way is because he is answering in kind.
Folks in your camp have called me just about everything but "Angelina Jolie" while I was trying to present my position. I'm sure there is no need for me to provide a link.
July 9, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here I am sweetie.
July 9, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for Obama "tacking to the center" I would agree & argue that people simply haven't been paying attention & reading what they want into what he's clearly stated on the record. As for FISA Obama clearly stated he would oppose any legislation that contained "retroactive immunity". I would have liked to seen him take a principaled stance on this. Fascism is a bit over used these days & turning it on our own certainly doesn't help. I honestly believe this FISA bill or more directly the immunity is directly related to information gathered on certain people in power that can be used against them. I also reserve the right to be wrong...
You never know how you'd decide until you're presented with all the evidence. None of US have it (unfortunately) so there must remain at least a fraction of benefit of doubt. Peace.
July 9, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for FISA Obama clearly stated he would oppose any legislation that contained "retroactive immunity". I would have liked to seen him take a principaled stance on this.
Exactly!! AMEN!!!
Watch out buddy. They'll be calling you a neocon next.
July 9, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding is that he issued a statement saying that this bill is "better" than the one he initially said he would filibuster. Now you can take that for what you think. Harry Reid just came out against the bill, but also admitted that it was "better" than before. He's still against it because of the immunity part. But this debate has been raging and has gone through all its permutations, and I, for one, trust Obama's judgment and, though I still would prefer for him to vote against it, I also know that running for - and being - president is not something that lends itself to simple black & white decision making. Witness our last 7+ years. No, I'll take Obama any day, and support him through all this controversy.
July 9, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take his statement like I take any other statement by any other politician. No more, no less.
And when just about every assertion in that statement gets taken down, then I regard it as bunk.
And I take it as an insult to my intelligence that the statement was made in the first place.
July 10, 2008 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
loki redux, you have no fucking idea what fascism is. When this avatar was over in Germany fighting real fascists, he certainly didn't think he was doing battle with NC Steve.
Moreover, you don't understand the difference between a principled stand and a campaign strategy. NC Steve's plea for us not to bash Obama until the election is a campaign strategy intended to help Obama win. That should be everyone's concern now. Because the constitution will be shredded far more with Republicans back in charge.
The FISA bill doesn't shred the constitution. Spying on Americans shreds the constitution. If you think Obama is going to act like Bush, then go ahead and bash Obama because he doesn't deserve anyone's vote. Bills come and go. The most egregious are invalidated by the Supreme Court, eventually. Meanwhile no harm is done by bills unless they are acted on. That is the key issue.
No one is trying to censor you. NC Steve is advising you to use your brain, if you want Obama elected. You can start by looking up words in the dictionary before you fling them about.
And if you want to take a principled stand, the best way to reach your goal is to elect Obama and then petition him and Congress to act on principle. Otherwise your righteousness here doesn't get you any closer to your goal and indeed might take you further away. Time to grow up.
July 9, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said
July 9, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mentioned the Supreme Court, which is supposed to invalidate laws that violate the Constitution. But what happens to that entity if McCain gets elected? More reason to tone down the rhetoric and concentrate on making sure that doesn't happen.
July 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yummmy, shit taste gooooooooooood.
July 9, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink