Comments on: Bad Memories

By: celebrity fuck you

celebrity fuck you — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:04:01 +0000

Sign: zdbrw Hello!!! fmkup and 715vzsszbmgme and 9410 : I love your blog. :) I just came across your blog.

By: billymayer

billymayer — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:36:34 +0000

Sign: uwfgv Hello!!! khctf and 142xhbyfwwuus and 5439 My Comments: Great!

By: megan fox

megan fox — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:18:05 +0000

Sign: umsun Hello!!! rcuwwymhyw and 8749ssgfhphzye and 1653Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post? nice! I just came across your blog and wanted to say that I?ve really enjoyed it.

By: angelina jolie

angelina jolie — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:48:25 +0000

I love your site. :) Love design!!! I just came across your blog and wanted to say that I?ve really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. Sign: ndsam

By: sandraraven

sandraraven — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:49:52 +0000

Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.

By: Doodah

Doodah — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:31:15 +0000

downunder girl said,
July 14, 2007 at 23:32

Have to ask: who’s “Boo-Boo Kitty Fuck”?

Yes, please reveal. You’re a little more opaque than usual. Can’t tell if that’s because you need more Bushmill’s or less.

By: HTML Mencken

HTML Mencken — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:40:39 +0000

Mikey, you’re really on fire lately. Good stuff.

Brad, you may be right. I dunno. Truth be told I hate this Primary crap, especially so early.

Anyway, if by some chance Edwards gets the nomination he will be subject to the biggest dirty tricks campaign of all time. Yeah, sure, any Dem will get that treatment, you say, and you’d be right. But Edwards’s will be worst of all. The ‘two Americas’ thing scares the shit out of the Wealthy Criminal Class, and because of that, so-called Liberals will be in on the smear campaign too. It’s gonna get ugly regardless. But it’s gonna get really ugly against Edwards.

By: a different brad

a different brad — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:36:48 +0000

mikey, I feel your pain. It pains me to basically be arguing that my guts says Obama is for real. I don’t know, and don’t pretend to know.
But George Carlin won’t run, and Bill Hicks is dead.
You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.

By: a different brad

a different brad — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:28:56 +0000

That’s an enviable ability to see them firsthand you got there, Candy. And I was probably being too hyperbolic to call Edwards a salesman. But I do think that if he had a stronger position his words would be much more cautious, and playing to the base seems, to me, to be a good indication of a willingness to betray them later on. I don’t have anything against Edwards, and obviously prefer him to Hillary, but maybe I’m still so pissed that ABB became Kerry it’s bleeding into how I see Edwards.
As for Obama, I can’t match your personal exposure to him, like I can’t read the NYRB piece HTML cited cause I don’t have the issue or access to their archives. I did read the New Yorker piece on him, and it seems like right now it’s all about not being labelled a liberal, for his campaign. That’s what’s so Clintoniod about him. But the article also emphasized a key difference between Obama and Bill; a need to be liked. Bill doesn’t want to be called a liberal because it would push people away from him, Obama, I think, because he’s calculating and fears a liberal pigeonhole.
I don’t mean I agree with this move. I think Bush has made it possible to be a liberal again, and the Dems have to realize it soon or a third party is going to fuck them again. But I think that Obama, unlike Clinton, is trying to avoid the liberal tag because he is one.
But I also recognize how many “I think”s are in there, and that I’m quite capable of being wrong

By: mikey

mikey — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:18:17 +0000

I’ve thought about that. After bush made his claims about “compassionate conservatism” and “a humble foreign policy” and then turned out to be this horrific criminal, that’s not an acceptable part of the game anymore. If you can’t be honest in your political rhetoric, if you’re willing to tell us what you’ll do and why you’ll do it, well fuck you.

Yeah, I get “political realities”. But that’s what I’m talking about. The “game” is what’s killing us. Do I think it’s gonna change? Nope. I think you’re right. For that matter, there’s no good reason for me to believe John Edwards’ rhetoric, because you’re right, lies are how one gets elected.

But on the gripping hand, one has to base one’s political choices on something. So I’m sceptical. I’m suspicious. But I have to find a way to make a practical decision. I think Hillary and Barrack don’t believe in sacrificing their polictical careers to start to change the dialog. I think Edwards and Gore might be willing to have that kind of courage. So there it is…

mikey

By: Candy

Candy — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:40:43 +0000

How is Edwards a salesman, adb? He is a successful tort lawyer who made his money helping little people beat giants. He grew up legitimately poor. He is the only candidate talking about poverty.

Yes, he voted for the war. That’s a big deal to me, too. On the other hand, the war isn’t the only issue I’m concerned about. I’m a single parent, and I care as much about health care and education as I do about Iraq, and it’s obvious we won’t have the money for the social programs I care about if we don’t quit spending on militarism. I don’t like it that Obama (and I’ve seen him a couple of times) is rather cavalier about health care. He also doesn’t seem to seriously consider cutting military spending. He flatly dismissed it out of hand at that town hall. Also, the man is just icky slick. The first time I went to one of his town halls, a couple of months ago, a lot of the audience questions really sounded like plants. i didn’t get that vibe from Edwards at all. I really liked Obama until I went to that first town hall. Nothing I’ve seen since impressed me in the least.

Also, Edwards has Elizabeth. Elizabeth alone would be good for a lot of votes. It’s hard not to love her. It’s like the Clinton team but with a faithful marriage and without Hillary’s abrasiveness.

By: a different brad

a different brad — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:23:50 +0000

mikey, all I can say is, so what. If I were running for president today, with the stakes involved, I’d say shit I didn’t believe to keep the path clear to having a chance to do something real. Words mean shite all. I’d tell an Israeli paper something just like that, then be sure to make a show of believing their claims to only be working on nuclear power plants once in office.
Politicians have to pander, and Obama is doing something no African-American man has ever done before. Telling special interest groups what they want to hear is a necessary part of a filthy trade. It doesn’t, however, mean you have to follow up those words with deeds.

By: a different brad

a different brad — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:13:06 +0000

I guess, HTML, that I’ve seen enough him to forgive some bending to reality. Triangulation worked for Bill, and by being better at it than Hillary Obama has done a hell of a lot to deflate her chances.
And he doesn’t have to work for our votes, face it. Edwards sounds good right now because he’s got the worst chance of the big three, meaning he has to play to the base. Hillary and Obama, for better or worse, are looking past the primaries, to the general election. If Obama were being more radical…. well, then we wouldn’t have to look at how Sharpton was treated to find the lingering racism in the MSM.
I know this probably makes no sense, but Obama’s campaign makes me think of how Ali beat Foreman in the Rumble in the Jungle. Tire em out, then strike. Use their own strength against em. I see a man with a plan, a man who was against the war at a time when it could have crushed his then tiny political career. Edwards and Hillary voted for the war.
I’m not saying I love Obama n he’s gonna save the world. But short of Gore entering the picture, I think he’s the best choice. Edwards is a salesman.

By: mikey

mikey — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:08:33 +0000

It’s not that I don’t have faith in the people so much, but rather I have utter faith in their indoctrination. America is a nation built on a warrior ethos, and we’ve somehow beat that horse to the point where we’ve gone from honoring our history in warfare to worshiping war. Any politician who tries to find a way to build down the military to a posture suitable for todays realities will be terribly vulnerable to attack from the right. And the people will be terribly vulnerable to that rhetoric. It would only take a few incidents, terror or overseas military aggressiveness for the warhawks to begin to effectively blame the peace party for everything, and I’m sorry, I think enough people will buy it.

I’ll believe that things have a slim hope of changing when the dialog isn’t “managed”, when our national conversation doesn’t have fences around it, where talking about what our true role in the world is, what the future of our economy and the growth of entitlements is, how it can be sustained, what our true vulnerabilities are, what an appropriate level of military spending and military usage might be, until the taboos are removed from the dialog, I’m sorry, we’re doomed. Seems simple and obvious to me.

Brad, when Obama told an Israeli newspaper interviewer that under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to develop nuclear technology, it was obvious to me that he was willing to use American “hard power” in an inappropriate and stupid fashion, and his foreign policy would be based on the same “power projection” and American exceptionalism that has increasingly characterized American foreign policy since at least Kennedy. This is a path where the errors in judgment and knee-jerk aggressiveness are increasingly leading us to a bad end.

America is a major contributor to global instability today. America could be a major contributor to peace and prosperity. Pull back from most of the overseas bases, build down the strategic forces, put some kind of effort into living WITH our neighbors rather than dominating or manipulating them, and maybe there’s a future. But think, really think about where the current path leads, and listen to the things our politicians feel they’re allowed to talk about, and tell me how there is optimism…

mikey

By: HTML Mencken

HTML Mencken — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:36:36 +0000

Obama’s whole fucking schtick is triangulation. Tip-toe. Do nothing radical. Don’t piss off the wingnuts. It’s called “healing”. Why people think he’s another Russ Feingold is beyond me. Read the NYRB piece and read the subtext of Tomasky’s excusals of Obama’s corporate-whoring. Read one of his campaign goons’ condescending piece in Slate on the Michael Moore movie and tell me again how he’s not Clintonoid. Taibbi has him pegged, I think: Obama is a fantastic bullshit artist but very ideologically timid — another Bill, which is what really gets Hillary’s goat about him. His rhetoric on Iran is disturbing for what he won’t say. He’s not earned Marty Peretz’s endorsement for no reason.

I’ll eventually do a “Primary Primer” on who I like and don’t like and why and why not.

By: a different brad

a different brad — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:08:48 +0000

mikey, and HTML, why are you so sure Obama has been assimilated?
I don’t mean that snarkily, I honestly feel as if I must’ve missed something. The vote was bad, yeah, and he’s not being a firebrand. But if you’re hanging your lack of belief in his character on when he cast a vote, well…. that’s a bit much.
And mikey, I think you underestimate the people. If Gore made sure the folk who lost jobs to weapons factory closings found new jobs in, I dunno, solar panel factories, all that warmongering rhetoric would be a lot less effective. At any rate it’s not hard to see a Gore Admin having a very positive effect on the economy, and that’s the core of how Clinton made 96 so easy.
Plus, if he had any balls, he’d form a war profiteering commission in congress, and take back half a trillion or so. That’d be one hell of a surplus.
It’s wishcasting, perhaps, but one of the real virtues of Gore 2.0 is that he seems to have recognized the uselessness of DNC style campaigning.
My problem with Edwards is that for all his words now, he voted for the war. So either he was a fool, or he compromised everything he claims to believe in for political expediency. I know you feel differently from me on this mikey, but hasn’t Edwards shown that at the toughest times he doesn’t lead, but follow?

By: wordyeti

wordyeti — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:51:04 +0000

Either way, I look into the murky future, I see the end. Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? How long can we get by on bluster and threat? Who knows, but you can do it without me, kids…

Sheesh, you’re a frickin’ barrel of laughs today, Mikey. Who shit in your punchbowl? I fall victim to this “End is Near” shit more often than I should, but try to remember that the country has survived a lot worse in its lifetime, despite all the doomsaying and hairshirt-rending.

Peak Oil is a bitch, there’s no doubt about that. The fallout from that is not going to be pretty, but believe me, whatever happens here, the rest of the world is going to have it worse. China? Come on – 1.3 billion people means 1.3 billion breakfasts, lunches and dinners every day, on a base of arable land polluted with cadmium and mercury. India? They have 12 languages on every bill printed in the country; they’re a bad curry fart from descending into multi-sided civil war, with Pakistan added for extra spice. Europe can’t figure out whether they want to be one big Euro open to immigrants, a welfare-nanny state or back to the Balkan model. Brazil has enough problems just trying to keep the Bolivian coke from setting off a total firestorm in the favelas, and the Russian bear is busily gnawing its own guts out from the internal corruption and Russian mafia. So much for the bright future for the “BRIC” that all the emerging market snakeoil salesmen are peddling.

Take a walk in the park. Check out all the energy of the younger kids. It ain’t that bad … unless maybe the labels on the prescriptions all got mixed up…

(this goes for you, too HTML)

By: mikey

mikey — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:40:28 +0000

Of the “big three”, I think it’s apparent (at least to me) that only edwards would have any tendency at all to end America’s military-driven foreign policy. Gore would quite probably roll back America’s militarism and reduce military spending, but I betcha he’d get creamed in 2012 by a tough talking republican, because the American people are too invested in militarism.

Hillary and Obama would expand America’s wars. Edwards won’t completely end America’s military expansion, and he WILL continue the costly fiction that the military is the primary bulwark against terrorism. So while he may resist the calls to start new wars, he likely WILL increase military spending and the growth of “Lilly Pad” bases around the world.

But long-term, Gore might be the greatest disaster by allowing the most agressive warhawks to take power in four years. So Edwards is likely going to be the best choice.

But barring some public meltdown, only Hillary and Barrack have a shot at the Democratic party nomination at this point…

mikey

By: downunder girl

downunder girl — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:32:34 +0000

Have to ask: who’s “Boo-Boo Kitty Fuck”?

By: a different brad

a different brad — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:27:27 +0000

How’s about criticizing Clinton for failing to work with Congress when his party held both Houses of it, helping to set the stage for Newt’s Contract on America?
I agree that Hillary is a nightmare waiting to happen, but I don’t know where the Obama loathing is coming from.
Yeah, he’s playin like a centrist. But he’s also the only of the big three who was against the war from the beginning. And he’s the only one who can do what no major Dem, save maybe Cuomo in a smaller setting, has done in my lifetime; speak to our better natures. Edwards arguably has better rhetoric now, but he failed his chance, to my mind. Yeahyeah, he said he was wrong. Still failed.
Obama’s playing the game now, but who really cares about the poses? Bush pretended he cared about other humans back in 2000, but everyone with half a brain knew basically what he was, if not how extreme it’d end up being. I don’t mean to buy into any cult of personality, and his seeming betrayal on the first end the war vote, waiting until it was dead to vote for it, does raise the question of how he would have voted in 2000 if he felt his political career was at stake.
But….. I still feel that if Gore doesn’t run, Obama is the only real hope for change. Not revolutionary, massive change like we all agree would be the just ideal, but effective change.
And, while it’s a small, non-decisive point, the simple act of electing Obama would be an incredibly effective step towards rebuilding our nation’s standing in the world. Arguably more effective than ending the war, tho if he were able to make that his first real act in office…..
And finally, tho I’d be shocked to hear the issue ever raised in the campaign, is there any candidate more likely to try and finally end our nation’s war on black men? Not Hillary. If Bill was any guide, she’d make a big show of having great race relations, while building yet more prisons and upping mandatory mins to seem tough on crime.