We Have A Winner
Posted on January 30th, 2010 by D. Aristophanes
The best backwards math so far on Obama’s Question Time comes from a commenter over at Gateway Pundit. C’mon down, Sandy:
How come I have not seen anything about Obama at the GOP Retreat on O’Reilly or Hannity tonight? Maybe Obama was so over the top that to comment on this would make him look unstable.
Yes, that must have been why.
What a moran. If you haven’t seen it on O’Reilly or Hannity, that means it never happened. DUH.
This event will processed through the republican doubleplusgoodifier and what will emerge from the other side is the story about how B Hussein begged and wheedled his way into the conference, then used his Chicago thug-fu to take the podium where he proceeded to lie, curse, and sing the Internationale before the brave calm righteous warriors for Jesus squelched him with awesome USA FREEDOM POWER and made him cry, which is why Fox cut away because they just love this country SO MUCH that they just couldn’t show the POTUS crying like a little girl.
I give it till Monday.
stryx
get off the boat and read those comments. it only took about 12 hours.
Here we go
GOP says it had a better health care plan for months
“That’s exactly what the Republican health care proposal does, much more so than the proposal that he and Democrat leaders are trying to shove down the throats of the American people,’’ House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio told reporters.
Daniel Larison over at American Conservative has a pretty awesome takedown of Mike Pence, ringleader for the GOP bunch that got destroyed by Obama yesterday:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/01/29/mike-pence-republican-man-of-ideas/
Obama said he’d be happy to accept the GOP’s ideas … when they have any. He called Boehner’s BS what it is (well, it’s BS but it’s also) boilerplate.
The GOP has been tossing out pony-and-rainbow ‘ideas’ that, in contrast to reality, they claim will cover everybody and make it sunny all the time and not cost a dime. Those aren’t ideas. They’re political cover for the real agenda, which is to claim that ‘ideas’ that you don’t actually want enacted aren’t being listened to by the mean Dems.
Once they get into 5th gear, the push back will be the story about an arrogant, uppity negro
Somebody here made a classic comment here a while back about this phenomenon — something along the lines of “if he walked on water, they’d say he can’t swim.” It sums up the mental gymnastics they automatically go through.
Pwned!
Q & A with House GOP so “effective” for Obama that Fox “cut away”
~
blader said,
“Once they get into 5th gear, the push back will be the story about an arrogant, uppity negro”
They just have to catch up to their white talking heads’ comments on the SOTU:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#35135174
That was a lovely moment. The way he said it, “boilerplate” was clearly a euphemism.
A Boehner can always be trusted not to be shoved down one’s throat.
They have programmed their little Dalits well, have they not?
He called Boehner’s BS what it is (well, it’s BS but it’s also) boilerplate.
I liked his response to one of the questions (not sure whose as all wingnuts look alike to me). Said he would be glad to embrace their suggestions, but could not find one credible economist who would support their assertions.
Another great bit was when he dismantled the notion that Republicans demanding 100 percent of what they want in a bill or else walking is somehow fair play on their part.
‘That’s not how democracy works,’ was his punctuation on the above point.
Once they get into 5th gear, the push back will be the story about an arrogant, uppity negro
They’re already there.
Fuck You Wingnut Pitchpeople.
And does anything really reaffirm what petulant children the rightards are than their getting butthurt about being “lectured”? I look forward to the passage of “Resolved, that you’re not the boss of us”.
GOP retreat
Perfectly named. And by one of their own.
It’s their only possible reaction, since actually engaging with him and reasoning about issues is completely out of the question by definition.
since actually engaging with him and reasoning about issues is completely out of the question by definition
Especially given the well known liberal bias of the facts and reality.
you know who else was smart and could lecture a crowd for over ninety minutes?
The only humans more entertaining than the reliably ignorant and dishonest Gateway Pudendum are his regular Pudendatista. The greatest threat to the teabag crowd is the idea of Democrats and Republicans cooperating.
This thing will have Never Happened within a week. What? GOP question period? What’s that? Look, harry reid said something idiotic.
Scuse me while I whip dis out.
/Napa “.. or was he never really there at all..”
In Britain it’s Question Time. Here it’s Clean Your Clock Time.
Perhaps some day Alan Grayson will get to question President Palin.
GOP retreat
Perfectly named. And by one of their own.
GOP and Teabagger Joint Movement
Stubborn and angry? I could see them thinking he was stubborn since he did not immediately or even ever embrace their boilerplate ideas (of course through 8 years of Bush they called that being resolute and staying the course), but I don’t recall him ever showing any signs of real anger. Annoyance perhaps but not anger.
So will FOX cut away from the next Presidential debates? Is that the idea now?
Obambi, acted like a haughty, arrogant little punk at the GOP retreat. We have an arrogant egghead as President, and he couldn’t even give straight answers to their questions. He bobbed, weaved, and tapped danced but there were no straight answers.
Yet the media still has an orgasm over it. Disgusting. Still doesn’t matter though, because healthcare reform is DEAD
Wha wha wha happened? Somebody did a driveby bitchslapping on me.
Know what else was great about Obama’s appearance? No winking and no goddamn nicknames! This country is making great strides….
It really was a remarkable performance. As far as I could see, he only missed knocking a few of the balls they tossed at him out of the park:
1) That moron Marsha Blackburn, in her rambling, incoherent, talking-points-laden question-in-the-form-of-a-monologue made some comment about how everyone is against health reform because they don’t want a public option, and Obama didn’t say “that’s not in the bill” in his response;
2) The same crazy Marsha Blackburn kept referring to the “Democrat” party, which just oozes disrespect and should be countered whenever the turds use it;
3) Obama failed to point out that not only did the Republican “health care plan” fail to cover much of anyone – it also did nothing to stop recissions or denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Which makes their “plan” more of a proposal to cover a mere 1% more of the population rather than a “reform” of any type.
But out of over an hour of questioning, to only miss those few points is impressive. I personally could have pushed back on everything the way he did; I have that logic geek mind for remembering detail too – but in my case, I would have phrased every response in the “because blah blah blah, you douchebag” format – which is why I wouldn’t be such a great president. It really is his temperament that sets him apart.
Obambi, acted like a haughty, arrogant little punk at the GOP retreat. We have an arrogant egghead as President, and he couldn’t even give straight answers to their questions. He bobbed, weaved, and tapped danced but there were no straight answers.
This is why Fox and the conservative media have been running footage of it non-stop.
This thing will have Never Happened within a week. What? GOP question period?
Oh, I think the GOP’s going to be *very* reluctant to have him back. Nevertheless, I’m hoping that Obama will be able to use this as a rhetorical cudgel: “Y’know, six months ago, I went to talk to the GOP leadership, and we had a good discussion about moving things forward. Now, we’ve made some progress on these issues, and I’d be happy to go back and talk about where we’re going next, but they haven’t wanted to do that. I think that’s unfortunate. I think it’s important for the opposition party and the President to talk with each other to break through gridlock and get things done. Like I said, I’ll go to them. Ball’s in their court.”
My favorite response so far has come from some low-ranking tool at America’s Shittiest Website. The shorter:
“Obama called for an ‘independent fact check’ of Jeb Hensarling’s claim about deficits. Well, the data are really easy to find, so I went and did it, and, uh, Hensarling was wrong.
“BUT HE WAS ALMOST RIGHT! This is central to my point.”
It’s kind of revealing that Gateway Pundit’s commenter Sandy needs Hannity or O’Reilly to interpret the event for her. It was on CSPAN, Sandy, go watch it and make up your own damn mind about what happened.
Did Nancy Pelosi waste taxpayer dollars partying on her government-funded jet?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123472
What a little wench!
Maybe the Republicans can hire that O’Keefe lad to “creatively edit” the Q&A into Fox-appropriate shape.
Whatever happened to that guy after his big ACORN success, anyway?
It kinda looks bad for you when you have to change the subject. Like you think you already lost on this one. Is that something you don’t realize?
Is that an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars, liberals?
Maybe the Republicans can hire that O’Keefe lad to “creatively edit” the Q&A into Fox-appropriate shape.
I look forward to seeing the GOPers in suits with fur and leather vests with bared midriffs.
And by “look forward to” I mean that I have a garbage pail placed to catch the vomit.
Don’t feel up to taking on Obami handing the GOP their asses, Truth? Try again. Really, you can do it.
Yes, and we can trust that it’s the truth because it appeared on World Nut Daily.
Better trolls, please.
Obambi was on the defense, as any fair minded person could see from the exchange.
Also, for this to really work for O, he’s got to move on some of the issues they discussed. Heck, the line-item veto/enhanced rescission authority would be awesome if they could get it to work, and it could be pitched as a budget-cutting measure. Yes, it’s political geekery, but it’s less controversial than healthcare is.
His little tap dancing sideshow doesn’t change the fact that Liberals should try to get an agenda that is accepted by the American people and not reach for bogus issues such as this.
They have complete control of government since last year, they have had complete control of both houses since 06, and still look for a reason to blame somebody else for their inability to get something done.
In a word… PATHETIC… simple and true…
If this is all the democrat party has 2010 elections should be a walkover…
Republicans had great ideas for health care reform. It’s just that they didn’t have the time or the interest during their 4 years leading every branch of the Federal government. Democrats, on the other hand, don’t have any excuse, since they’re the majority.
Oh look! Troofie has to resort to discredited lies from wingnutdaily. No mention of the major league ass whuppin’ the President laid on at the REPUBLICAN RETREAT.
Troofie doesn’t want to talk about the EPIC bitchslap Obama delivered at the Republican retreat because it reminds him of the epic bitchslaps I’ve delivered to him, which are of course all the more humiliating because I don’t have permanent possession of a penis. So in that regard, Obama’s slapdown of the Republicans was less humiliating…except that Obama is black and all the Republicans are white. So it’s still an 11 on the humiliation scale, and far too painful for Troofie to think about.
Shut the fuck up Jenny. I feel sorry hat your husband has to listen to your jabber all the time, it must be very tiresome.
I’ve learned to assume that these trolls are actually lib parody experts working hard. Because nobody could possibly be that confused.
Obambi was on the defense, as any fair minded person could see from the exchange.
Exactly. And FOX, being fair-minded and not wanting to make the President look bad, cut away from the broadcast and refuses to show any of it.
Very generous of them.
Fox cut away because this isn’t big news.
Stop bitchslapping me and shoving things down my throat.
The smallest excuse to make Obami look bad is enough. News has nothing to do with it. If there was any way to get advantage out of this they’d be running it non-stop. But you know all this.
Republicans can probably deal with a one-time rhetorical ass-whoopin’ watched by the Democratic activist base on C-Span and CNN, while they can more than likely stand back and wait for Rahm and the Senate leadership to let die as much of the Democratic agenda as possible. Good exchange, from their point of view.
El Cid is right. This whole thing doesn’t matter, Republicans still hold the cards, baby.
Just say NO to Obambi’s agenda.
Troofie, you were banned from the library for misusing the computers. You had better get out before they catch you.
Blaming Whitey
Robin of Berkeley
In the early ’90s, my most P.C. friend boasted about attending an anti-racism workshop. Although the event was called “Healing Racism,” I silently dubbed it “Blaming Whitey.”
As she described it, whites and blacks faced each other on opposite sides of the room. Whites guiltily told tales of being racially insensitive, and blacks berated them. Then blacks recounted stories of racism while whites bowed their heads in shame and apologized.
My friend pronounced the day as healing. I thought it sounded sadomasochistic.
I chalked it up to “only in Berkeley.” But over the years I’ve heard of more and more such happenings.
In states both blue and red, incoming college freshmen must attend social justice seminars during orientation. As though 18-year-olds don’t feel crappy enough about body fat and pimples, now they have to recoil at the color of their skin.
The targeted audiences for these blaming and shaming sessions are getting younger, which is predictable. Every cult from the Moonies to the Left recruits from the malleable young.
Even kindergartners are being groomed to be the littlest of community organizers. One of my twenty-something clients cried herself to sleep in second grade after her teacher graphically detailed the conditions of slave ships. While this lovely young person never harmed a flea, somehow she became responsible for genocide.
Blacks in this country have been subjected to true horror in the past. This terrible fact of life cannot be changed.
Punishment is not possible for the evildoers; they are long dead. But that doesn’t stop Obama and the Left from exploiting grudges and grievances for their own agenda.
Whipping up racial antagonism harms us all, but it especially harms the youth. Hopeful, eager black children can turn angry and demoralized from constant reminders of bigotry. White kids may start believing that their race is evil.
Fostering friction benefits the Left’s goal of redistribution. To achieve socialism, they need whites under their thumb. The Left’s modus operandi: Crush white people’s spirits. (The Left excels at this — they’ve been trampling on blacks’ self-confidence for decades.)
By convincing whites of guilt by association, the Left can induce them to act against their own best interests. Sheepish whites will give up first-class health care and sacrifice Granny for reasons of “justice.” Or they’ll embrace illegal aliens, even if this means a degraded standard of living.
Brainwashed Americans will even risk their own safety and excuse crime. (“It’s not my mugger’s fault. He’s a victim of white privilege.”) They’ll offer up their own children to hostile public schools for the utopian vision of multiculturalism.
They’ll do anything, in fact, to get that scarlet letter “R” (Racist) off their backs. Most disturbingly, guilty whites will support a president who obviously despises them.
Think I’m exaggerating about Obama? Just witness his contempt on any given day, whether he’s demeaning Middle America, or Sen. Scott Brown’s truck, or the Cambridge Police.
And behold Obama’s friends: Eric Holder, who is revolted by our nation of cowards, and Michelle Obama, whose enraged speeches, caught on tape, can make your skin crawl.
For possibly the first time in our history, we have leaders who can’t stand most of the people who elected them. And Obama and his crew are working overtime to get whites to detest themselves too.
On the one hand, I understand the hatred and desire for revenge.
Our country’s history is different from most others’. Germany exterminated millions of Jews — but few Jews now live there. The Khmer Rouge massacred much of its population — but those killed were other Cambodians.
In the U.S., blacks coexist with whites, a race that once enslaved them. And the media, schools, and the government take every opportunity to pick at this racial wound.
So I recognize where this antipathy comes from — the shame of slavery and segregation. However — and I’m sorry if this sounds harsh — Obama and friends need to get over it. They need to start living in the world circa 2010.
You see, I am not one of those shrinks who encourage clients to rage for years about their rotten parents. And I don’t believe that bad childhoods exonerate bad behavior. Simply put, people remain in bondage when they allow the past to become their identity today.
The social justice campaign against white America is itself unjust. No matter how great someone’s suffering, retaliating against the innocent is inexcusable.
White privilege seminars are a forum for propaganda, a way to bully and browbeat. They are the elitist version of the New Black Panthers and their billy clubs.
As a psychotherapist, I see the damage done to young people: There’s Shannon, a teen, who had a full-blown panic attack when a teacher fulminated against “white supremacy.”
And then there’s Lara, a Midwestern girl who has had her sense of self-worth decimated since arriving in Berkeley for college. Once confident and secure, Lara now takes antidepressants.
Last week, Lara said to me the following: “When I first came here, I had no idea of all the terrible things white people have done. I’ve come to hate white people. I hate myself. Sometimes I fantasize about killing myself so there would be one fewer white person.”
This is what it’s come to.
I said the following back to Lara:
“Your life matters. You have a right to be here, no matter what anyone tells you. You are a precious gift to the world. Don’t let anyone ever convince you otherwise.”
And the same words apply to every one of us:
To blacks rendered permanent victims;
And whites tarred as racists;
To the old being cast out;
And men viewed as obsolete;
To women being sexually degraded;
And those of faith being jeered at:
Troofie doesn’t want to talk about the EPIC bitchslap Obama delivered at the Republican retreat because it reminds him of the epic bitchslaps I’ve delivered to him, which are of course all the more humiliating because I don’t have permanent possession of a penis.
Assuming facts not in evidence, your honor.
*Unless you are an Iraqi, an Afghani, a Hatian, from New Orleans or a liberal.
**Only applies to those of Christian or Jewish faith.***
***The Jewish faith only counts until we eliminate the rest.
Uh oh. Another copy paster. Time for more epic of Gilgamesh.
It reads like a dream order for
a wild frat partybreakfast: Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.SRSLY, add “a couple bags of sticky kush” and “several feet of frosty rails” and I’d say gettin the fuck out of DC was being done right.
All Hail Glorious Leader Pelosi!!!
and pass that buddha sack…
Assuming facts not in evidence, your honor.
Which one?
Fox cutting away isn’t big news.
Imagine if you planned a country’s economic future using calculations exclusively based on even numbers. For ideological reasons you excluded odd numbers because you declared that they represent bigotry and have divisive nature since they cannot be divided equally in half. Absolutely all calculations for the future would then end up being wrong. This sounds insane and improbable, but what we’re doing now in the Western world is exactly this naïve. In the name of Multiculturalism we completely ignore all ethnic, religious, cultural and, yes, racial differences, because we have decided that these things don’t matter. But in real life, ethnicity, culture, religion and race do matter. Doesn’t that mean that all our projections for the future by necessity will end up being wrong, since they fail to take important factors into account?
Policy needs to be rooted in a realistic assessment of human nature, not in wishful thinking. Good intentions are far from sufficient to ensure good results. History is full of well-intended policies gone horrible wrong. We know from past experience that basing an ideological world view on a fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature is bound to end in disaster. Society will become more and more totalitarian in order to suppress all the information that doesn’t conform to the official ideology. Isn’t this what is happening in the West now?
I used to believe until quite recently that skin color was irrelevant. I was brought up that way. I still don’t think ethnicity or race does or should mean everything. In fact, I would say it is patently uncivilized to claim that it means everything. But I can no longer say with a straight face that it means absolutely nothing, and if it means more than nothing, it needs to be taken into account. Whether we like this or not is immaterial.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that people tend to prefer their own ethnic group above others. An international poll in 2007 showed that 90 percent of the inhabitants in Egypt, Indonesia and India believed that each country should guard their innate culture and lifestyle. Immigration concerned people in 44 out of the 47 countries.
Guarding your identity is thus a universal human trait, not a white trait. In fact, it is less pronounced among whites today than among anybody else. Only whites cling onto the idea of universalism, everybody else sticks with their own ethnic group. In white majority Western nations it has become a state-sponsored ideology to “celebrate diversity,” despite the fact that all available evidence indicates that more diversity leads to more conflict.
In May 2007, Osama bin Laden’s deputy terrorist leader Ayman al-Zawahri stated that “Al-Qaida is not merely for the benefit of Muslims. That’s why I want blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world.”
Read that statement closely. This Jihadist organization is calling for a global war against whites. Not Christians or Jews. Whites. I have been told all of my life that skin color is irrelevant, but this balancing act gets a lot more difficult when somebody declares war against you because of your race.
According to the columnist Leo McKinstry, the British government has declared war on white English people:
In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks of Englishness. The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their rights ignored, their history trashed. In their own land, the English are being turned into second-class citizens.
Keith Best, head of the Immigration Advisory Service, stated that immigrants are “better citizens” than native Britons. Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers’ Alliance pressure group was shocked and replied that “Taxpayers shouldn’t be funding an outfit that describes them as being second-rate citizens.” But apparently, now they do.
DNA studies have proved that a significant majority of those who live in the British Isles today are descended directly from the Ice Age hunters, despite the Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Norman invasions. This accounts for 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 70% of the Scots and 68% of the English.
The UK Commission for Racial Equality in 1996 claimed that “everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant.” But if everybody is an immigrant, how come people of European stock in the Americas and Australia are still viewed as alien elements by some, even though many of them have lived there for centuries? As Professor David Conway demonstrates in his book A Nation Of Immigrants?, after the invasion led by William the Conqueror in 1066, the total number of Norman settlers in Britain was never more than five per cent of the population. The inflow now is 25 times any previous level and frequently from totally alien cultures, not from neighboring territories and cultural cousins as previously.
I’m sure the English are told that this is a result of colonialism, but there are no Britons left in Pakistan, so why should there be Pakistanis in Britain? The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turks, who have a thousand years of extremely brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are not many Dutch people left in Indonesia, so why should the Dutch be rendered a minority in their major cities by Moroccans and others? And why should European countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece, which have all suffered from centuries of Islamic colonization, have to accept Muslims into their lands? Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all, yet are still subject to mass immigration. The truth is that immigration policies bear little correlation to past colonialist history, population density or size. Ireland, Denmark, Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands have one, and only one, thing in common: The natives are white, and thereby have no legitimate claim to their own countries.
As Professor Ida Magli writes in an Italian essay entitled A Nation for Sale: “Why can’t we protest? Why aren’t we allowed what every people has always had the right to say, that is that no ruler, whatever the system of government — monarchy, dictatorship, democracy — has either the power or the right to sell off the homeland of their own subjects?”
The columnist Kevin Myers in Ireland thinks that no country has ever accepted, never mind assimilated, the volumes of immigrants now present in his country:
– – – – – – – – –
Why the presumption that an Asian Muslim who lives in Ireland is in any way Irish? My mother lived most of her life in England, but never for a second thought of herself as English. The media should be asking the big question, ‘Why are we still admitting hundreds of thousands of immigrants?’ Instead, we are obsessing with the relatively trivial question of: Are the Irish people, who after all have admitted vast armies of strangers to their national home, racist? This is self-hatred at its most pathetic, and its most self-defeating.
Rune Gerhardsen of the Labor Party in Oslo, the son of Norway’s longest-serving Prime Minister in history, states that “When I went to school we were taught about the Great Migrations. Today’s migrations are just as big. This is part of an international trend we neither can nor want to stop. I think this development is first and foremost exciting and positive.” He likes to say that we have lived for 10,000 years without anybody visiting us. Now we’ve had a massive change within an extremely brief historical period of time.
I will give Gerhardsen credit for frankly admitting that this is by far the greatest demographic change in our nation’s history since the end of the last Ice Age. The problem is, this change, which has already made the country a lot less safe than it was only a generation ago, has been conducted without real debate, solely with propaganda and censorship. And I’m not so sure all of these groups have come merely to “visit” us. Some of them are here to colonize and subdue us, and readily admit this if you care to listen to them.
According to the writer Kent Andersen, the greatest social experiment the population has ever been subject to was never decided democratically. The native majority were never allowed to have a say about whether they wanted to change the country forever. In his view, you don’t get mass immigration for decades unless somebody with power allows this and desires it.
During the Multicultural craze of the 1990s, novelist Torgrim Eggen in an essay entitled “The psychotic racism” warned against “race wars in the streets” as a result of mass immigration. The solution to this was not to limit immigration, but to limit criticism of immigration. According to Eggen, xenophobia and opposition to mass immigration should be viewed as a mental illness, and hence “the solution to this xenophobia is that you should distribute medication to those who are seriously affected. I have discussed this with professor of community medicine, Dr. Per Fugelli, and he liked the idea.” Mr Fugelli suggested putting anti psychotic drugs in the city’s drinking water.
This may sound too extreme to be meant seriously, but Mr. Fugelli has continued to publicly chastise those who are critical of national immigration policies. Eggen warned that arguments about how ordinary people are concerned over mass immigration shouldn’t be accepted because this could lead to Fascism: “One should be on one’s guard against people, especially politicians, who invoke xenophobia on behalf of others. And if certain people start their reasoning with phrases such as ‘ordinary people feel that,’ one shouldn’t argue at all, one should hit [them].”
Repeated violence committed by non-white immigrants against whites is dismissed because they come from “weak groups.” But whites are a weak group. We are a rapidly shrinking global minority, and Nordic-looking Scandinavians are a minority of a minority. Ethnologist Maria Bäckman in her study “Whiteness and gender” followed a group of Swedish girls in the immigrant-dominated suburb of Rinkeby outside Stockholm. Several of the native girls stated that they had dyed their hair to avoid harassment and being called “whore.” We thus already now have a situation where being blond in certain areas of Sweden, not just in Pakistan or Egypt, makes you a target of harassment and aggression.
In my country, the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud from 2006 made Multiculturalism and total non-discrimination into an official state ideology. If a Muslim immigrant claims that a native has somehow discriminated against him, the native non-Muslim has to mount proof of his own innocence. I have later discovered that similar laws have been passed across much of Western Europe, encouraged by the European Union.
Native Europeans are being told that we don’t have a history and a culture, and that we thus “gain” a culture when others move to our countries. This is an insult to thousands of years of European history, to the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and cultures and the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage all Westerners share in. The funny part is, the next second we are told that we do have a culture, but it consists of nothing but a long line of crimes and is thus nothing to preserve, anyway.
My nation doesn’t even have a colonial history. It gained its independence as late as the twentieth century, at which point it was a poor country, yet because I am white, I am to be held personally responsible for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by every person who happens to have roughly similar skin color throughout history. American novelist Susan Sontag even stated that “The white race is the cancer of human history.” I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I’m told that race doesn’t matter.
I do not hold Abdullah who sells kebab down on the corner personally responsible for sacking Constantinople, abducting millions of Europeans to slavery, colonizing the Iberian Peninsula, ruining the Balkans or threatening Vienna several times. I criticize Islam because Muslims have never admitted their past and will continue to commit atrocities as long as the institution of Jihad is alive. I do not believe in collective responsibility, and I do not think a person should be held responsible for actions made by his ancestors centuries ago.
On the other hand, if I am to take the blame, personally, for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by any white person in the past, it is only fair that I, personally, should also take credit for their achievements. It was peoples of European stock who created the modern world, not anybody else. If I am to be held personally responsible for colonialism, I want personal credit for being a part of the one civilization that has taken the greatest strides for mankind of any civilization that has ever existed on this planet. I’m done with apologizing for my existence for the nameless crime of being born white.
As African-American writer Elizabeth Wright says:
After decades of inundation about the evils of ‘white racism’ coming from all directions, and most especially from the media and education establishments, the average white is programmed to avoid anything that smacks of conscious endorsement of his own race. In the current social climate, to display favorable regard towards that which is white, not only is forbidden, but is viewed as an automatic disparagement of non-whites. A ‘White Pride’ T-shirt is deemed a threatening symbol, whereas a ‘Black Supremacy’ slogan on a button or garment is viewed as an understandable, albeit angry response to undeserved past abuses. Any public effort to promote a white theme is doomed to failure, even if the proper bows to racial diversity are adhered to. Whites learn early to censor themselves.
I’ve been told by Americans that they have moved beyond race, but judging from examples such as this, it looks more as if they have established a culture of institutionalized white masochism. It’s not that Americans have moved beyond race, it’s just that the whites have unilaterally surrendered. The United States was almost 90% white as late as 1965, and will be minority white within a couple of generations. I don’t know of any example where the formerly dominant group has become a minority and this has not resulted in a complete change of the nature of that country, or to its dissolution, but in the USA, this entire subject is taboo because it is “racist.” That’s not rational.
I have listened to claims regarding the supposed benefits of mass immigration, why it is inevitable and why those who resist are bad people. The propaganda is remarkably similar from the Netherlands via Britain to Sweden and Italy, and that’s not a coincidence. This is all happening as a coordinated and well-planned assault on established national cultures, organized by the European Union and supported by the national political and media elites.
It has happened many times that a people move into an area and subdue those living there, but the natives have at least been allowed to defend themselves. It is unprecedented in the annals of history that a people is banned by their own leaders from defending their lands from foreign colonization and are even expected to fund this colonization. It is one of the greatest crimes of our age that the indigenous people of an entire continent, at least the Western half of it, are systematically deprived of their heritage, their history, their land and ultimately perhaps their entire physical existence, all with the active aid of the very individuals who are supposed to protect their interests. The only reason why this is considered positive, or even remotely acceptable, is because the natives in this case are white. There is no other reason for this.
In Glasgow, Scotland, Kriss Donald, a 15-year-old totally innocent white schoolboy was abducted, stabbed repeatedly and then doused in petrol and burned to death by a group of Pakistani immigrants. Labour politician Mohammad Sarwar, who helped in bringing some of the men to justice, later became the first elected representative in Britain to step down due to threats against his family.
The established historical pattern is that people who are conquered by others are harassed by the newcomers. I don’t see any reason to expect this to be different just because the natives happen to be white. On the contrary. We will be attacked even more viciously because we are a formerly dominant group. When we are told that mass immigration is “inevitable,” we are actually being told that verbal and physical abuse of out children is inevitable and that we should “get used to it.” I see no reason to accept that. If mass immigration leads to harassment of my children, it is my duty to resist it.
Jews were once told to “get back to Palestine.” When they did, they were told to “get out of Palestine.” The people who said this didn’t object to where Jews lived, they objected to the fact that they existed at all. I sometimes wonder whether whites of European descent, a global minority, are the Jews of the 21st century. I also notice that while people of European descent are told to “get back to Europe” in North America or Australia, whites in Europe are demonized if they resist being turned into a minority in their own countries. The problem then, apparently, isn’t where whites live, it’s that we exist at all.
Observer Ole Kulterstad notes that Europeans who are against free migration are labeled as “right-wing extremists.” But common sense indicates that giving away your country to alien cultures is more extreme than merely wanting to preserve it as it once was. I agree with him. I’m sick of hearing how Islamic organizations that want to destroy my civilization are called “moderates,” whereas Westerners are extremists if we resist, yet that is exactly what our media and our authorities do. We are not extremists; we are subject to policies that are extreme. Is gradually reducing a people to a minority in their own land, without proper debate about future consequences, not to be regarded as extreme?
I hear some writers fear an extremist backlash in Europe, but if people are so concerned about white extremism then they should cease creating the foundations for such extremism to grow. Native Europeans increasingly get the feeling that they are pushed into a corner and have an entirely justifiable fear of being overwhelmed. Fear leads to desperation, and desperation sometimes leads to aggression. If we do get an outbreak of political movements in Europe that really are extremist — and I sometimes fear this outcome, too — this will not come about because white Europeans are born evil, it will come about because white Europeans will be pushed into extremism, feel that their continued existence is at stake and that they have been abandoned by their own authorities. The solution to this is simply to recognize that Western nations have accepted more immigration from alien cultures in a shorter period of time than any other civilization has done peacefully in history. We have reached our limits and we need a break from mass immigration before our entire political and economic system breaks down.
The idea that every white person who desires self-determination and self-preservation is a racist, a white supremacist and a Nazi is nonsense and should flatly be rejected. The vast majority of racist violence in Western nations is by non-whites attacking whites. Consequently, if we limit immigration this is anti-racism, since we are protecting our children against racist violence. It is not about white supremacy, either, it is about equality. Whites are currently the only racial group specifically denied the opportunity to defend their countries and heritage. If we assert our right to do so we are thus fighting for equality, not supremacy.
The “Nazi” accusations so carelessly thrown out these days are completely baseless in this context. The Nazis believed that whites, and blondes in particular, had the right to colonize or eradicate others. But the policy we follow today could be dubbed reversed Nazism since it is based on the assumption that whites should have fewer rights than others and can be colonized or culturally eradicated with impunity. I don’t see why I should either be a “Nazi” or embrace and celebrate my extinction. It’s a false choice.
I suspect future historians will call this era the Age of White Masochism. The white man conquered the world and then suffered a nervous breakdown, a kind of collective neurosis shared by an entire civilization. However, I sense that this era is slowly coming to an end.
I would use two arguments as to why the current mass immigration the West should be halted:
1. Whites, too, have a right to exist. The primary duty you have as a human being is to preserve the heritage of your ancestors and pass on to your children a country they can call their own and where they can live in dignity.
2. The ongoing immigration is population dumping where less successful cultures dump their population in more successful ones. This is a form of global Communism and will generate the same effects by destroying successful communities and centers of excellence.
I believe whites in the 21st century should desire a room of our own where we can prosper, live in a major Western city without having to fear violence because of our race, and without being stripped of our heritage in order to placate people who moved to our countries out of their own free will. We have the right to preserve our heritage and are under no obligation to commit collective suicide or serve as a dumping ground for other countries. It has nothing to do with animosity towards others. For my part, I am being entirely honest if I say that I still love visiting other cultures, but I will love this even more if I know I can also return to my own.
The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.
Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune(4): here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.
Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.
The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.
No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.
This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.
Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.
Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.
Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.
Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.
Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.
The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Snake! A snake! Ooo-ooo, it’s a snake!
I read all of that. God I love drugs.
Oooh — this whole “logorhea advisory” is cool.
The catastrophe was terrific and instantaneous in its effect. The observatory of Dunsink registered in all eleven shocks, all of the fifth grade of Mercalli’s scale, and there is no record extant of a similar seismic disturbance in our island since the earthquake of 1534, the year of the rebellion of Silken Thomas. The epicentre appears to have been that part of the metropolis which constitutes the Inn’s Quay ward and parish of Saint Michan covering a surface of fortyone acres, two roods and one square pole or perch. All the lordly Tesidences in the vicinity of the palace of justice were demolished and that noble edifice itself, in which at the time of the catastrophe important legal debates were in progress, is literally a mass of ruins beneath which it is to be feared all the occupants have been buried alive. From the reports of eyewitnesses it transpires that the seismic waves were accompanied by a violent atmospheric perturbation of cyclonic character. An article of headgear since ascertained to belong to the much respected clerk of the crown and peace Mr George Fottrell and a silk umbrella with gold handle with the engraved initials, coat of arms and house number of the erudite and worshipful chairman of quarter sessions sir Frederick Falkiner, recorder of Dublin, have been discovered by search parties in remote parts of the island, respectively, the former on the third basaltic ridge of the giant’s causeway, the latter embedded to the extent of one foot three inches in the sandy beach of Holeopen bay near the old head of Kinsale. Other eyewitnesses depose that they-observed an incandescent object of enormous proportions hurtling through the atmosphere at a terrifying velocity in a trajectory directed south west by west. Messages of condolence and sympathy are being hourly received from all parts of the different continents and the sovereign pontiff has been graciously pleased to decree that a special missa pro defunctis shall be celebrated simultaneously by the ordinaries of each and every cathedral church of all the episcopal dioceses subject to the spiritual authority of the Holy See in suffrage of the souls of those faithful departed who have been so unexpectedly called away from our midst. The work of salvage, removal of debris human remains etc has been entrusted to Messrs Michael Meade and Son, 159, Great Brunswick Street and Messrs T. C. Martin, 77, 78, 79 and 80, North Wall, assisted by the men and officers of the Duke of Cornwall’s light infantry under the general supervision of H. R. H., rear admiral the right honourable sir Hercules Hannibal Habeas Corpus Anderson K.G., K.P., H.T., P.C., K.C.B., M.P., J.P., M.B., D.S.O., S.O.D., M.F.H., M.R.I.A., B.L., Mus. Doc., P.L.G., F.T.C.D., F.R.U.I., F.R.C.P.I. and F.R.C.S.I.
You never saw the like of it in all your born puff. Gob, if he got that lottery ticket on the side of his poll he’d remember the gold cup, he would so, but begob the citizen would have been lagged for assault and battery and Joe for aiding and abetting. The jarvey saved his life by furious driving as sure as God made Moses. What? O, Jesus, he did. And he let a volley of oaths after him.
— Did I kill him, says he, or what?
And he shouting to the bloody dog:
— After him, Garry! After him, boy!
And the last we saw was the bloody car rounding the corner and old sheepface on it gesticulating and the bloody mongrel after it with his lugs back for all he was bloody well worth to tear him limb from limb. Hundred to five! Jesus, he took the value of it out of him, I promise you.
When, lo, there came about them all a great brightness and they beheld the chariot wherein He stood ascend to heaven. And they beheld Him in the chariot, clothed upon in the glory of the brightness, having raiment as of the sun, fair as the moon and terrible that for awe they durst not look upon Him. And there came a voice out of heaven, calling: Elijah! Elijah! And he answered with a main cry: Abba! Adonai! And they beheld Him even Him, ben Bloom Elijah, amid clouds of angels ascend to the glory of the brightness at an angle of fortyfive degrees over Donohoe’s in Little Green Street like a shot off a shovel.
Let’s see…
Desperately trying to cast a glorious smackdown as cowardice… check
Changing the subject when called on it… check
Resorting to insults when cornered… check
Racist scroll-trolling about “reverse racism”… check
Indulging in homoerotic fantasies while boldly asserting heterosexuality…
DAMN, I almost had troll “Bingo”
Oh well, I can still hope for “nymjacking” “uncontroLLLLLLLLLLLLLLable spasms” “Blaming it on Goober” and ” ‘I’m leaving forever. By fuckers!’ “
Oooh — this whole “logorhea advisory” is cool.
It’s my second favorite feature of the userscript, right next to the dancing… you know.
As a white Southern male, I have to admit to being completely ashamed of my neighboring Southern white males whose penises are so tiny, frightened, and shriveled that they (the males, not the penises, I’m sure the penises would depart for better hosts if given the opportunity) spend their days worrying, or maybe just pretending to worry, that black people are unfairly dominating them.
btw, to whoever said it in this or another recent thread, “90 minute swirly” is the bestest summary I’ve seen yet.
Did I mention I’m a retard? That’s what Asperger’s is–P.C. speak for “mildly retarded”. Mommy says I’m “special” though, and that’s why I live at home with her at the age of 30.
Oooh — this whole “logorhea advisory” is cool.
It’s my second favorite feature of the userscript, right next to the dancing… you know.
Do any of the scripters out there have any interest in creating a version with dancing Hitlers? I like the badgers, but I think some little Adolfs would add to S,N!’s je ne sais quoi quotient.
Cool, but I’d prefer something maybe even more in-jokey, like a set of dancing Jo’bergs and that photo of Blightblart screaming like a drunken caveman. (“Like.”)
It’s not the cut-away admission of failure itself that is so notable. It’s the fact that FOX had so little confidence in the Republican message, that they couldn’t stick around for the rest of the hour to see if the GOP would put Obama back on the ropes.
They knew their side had “lost” after the very first round.
Aaaand NYMJACK! Cool! OK, Troofie, go for one of the other ones. I know you can do it, buddy.
I think some little Adolfs would add to S,N!’s je ne sais quoi quotient.
You mean like this one?
http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/animations/h/hitler_dancing-3405.gif
This dancing Hitler is a little more subtle, but it basically mimics the troll motion as he’s flaming the board:
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/DancingHitler.gif
Bin Laden: A hoax like the warming he champions
Jack Cashill
A January 29 Associated Press headline shouts without apparent irony, “Bin Laden Blames U.S. for Global Warming in New Tape.” Under the headline is a photo of Osama bin Laden speaking into a microphone.
“Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality,” bin Laden told the world, at least as translated by Al Jazeera. “All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.”
At first glance, the photo — in combination with a headline about a “tape” — challenged my belief that bin Laden is long since dead. On closer inspection, however, I saw that the tape in question was an “audiotape” and that the photo in question was dated “October 7, 2001.”
If anything, these two bits of inadvertent evidence strengthen the case that a breathing, badgering Osama is as much a charade as the global warming hysteria he now helps incite.
In fact, no reputable person has seen bin Laden alive since October 2001 when the photo in question was taken, that on the occasion of an interview by Al Jazeera. The audio and videotapes that he has allegedly made in the years since have convinced few outside the CIA.
National security guru Angelo Codevilla has argued persuasively that Osama died of pulmonary infection before the year 2001 was out. It was not until after his likely death that the so-called “confessional video,” the first one in which he actually took credit for September 11, surfaced.
“The fact that the video had been made for no self-evident purpose except to be found by the Americans should have raised suspicions,” Codevilla wryly observes.
That the video was accepted at face value can be traced to the CIA’s institutional bias in favor of the idea of rogue agents and against that of state-sponsored terrorism.
This newly exhumed bin Laden fits the White House template even more nicely. In the last few weeks. Osama has not only endorsed the underwear bomber, but he now also hectors us for our lifestyle choices. These scoldings reinforce the willfully myopic Obama vision that the enemy is “Al Qaeda” and that its rage has been stoked by America’s indifference to the world’s resources.
Indeed, Obama has focused narrowly on Osama for years. “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority,” so said candidate Obama during an October 7, 2008 presidential debate.
This comment reinforced those Obama had made six years earlier during his celebrated, October 2002, anti-Iraq speech in Chicago, the broadside that enabled him to flank Hillary to the left.
“You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda,” the then obscure Obama blustered six months before the Bush administration would launch its “dumb war” in Iraq.
For the next six years, most ambitious Democrats and the media embraced a pseudo-hawk position like Obama’s. Iraq was a “distraction” from the real war on terror against al Qaeda and Bin Laden, a “diversion,” a “sideshow.”
After his election, Obama may have actually learned he had been blowing smoke. In a January 15. 2009 statement that should have gotten more attention than it did, he conceded that he was not sure “whether [bin Laden] is technically alive or not.”
Technically?
Given that the party in power, the media, and the CIA all have a desperately vested interest in retelling the story that they have told America for the last eight years–especially after the Fort Hood massacre and the Christmas Day near bombing– do not look for any revision in the story line.
And if “Osama” can do double duty shilling for Obama’s global warming sleight-of-hand, all the better. The men behind the Osama curtain know a good hoax when they see one.
It’s kind of mixing internet tradition metaphors, but I was hoping for dancing mangoes.
Did I ever tell you about the man who taught his asshole to talk? His whole abdomen would move up and down you dig farting out the words. It was unlike anything I ever heard.
This ass talk had sort of a gut frequency. It hit you right down there like you gotta go. You know when the old colon gives you the elbow and it feels sorta cold inside, and you know all you have to do is turn loose? Well this talking hit you right down there, a bubbly, thick stagnant sound, a sound you could smell.
This man worked for a carnival you dig, and to start with it was like a novelty ventriliquist act. Real funny, too, at first. He had a number he called “The Better ‘Ole” that was a scream, I tell you. I forget most of it but it was clever. Like, “Oh I say, are you still down there, old thing?”
“Nah I had to go relieve myself.”
After a while the ass start talking on its own. He would go in without anything prepared and his ass would ad-lib and toss the gags back at him every time.
Then it developed sort of teeth-like little raspy in-curving hooks and started eating. He thought this was cute at first and built an act around it, but the asshole would eat its way through his pants and start talking on the street, shouting out it wanted equal rights. It would get drunk, too, and have crying jags nobody loved it and it wanted to be kissed same as any other mouth. Finally it talked all the time day and night, you could hear him for blocks screaming at it to shut up, and beating it with his fist, and sticking candles up it, but nothing did any good and the asshole said to him: “It’s you who will shut up in the end. Not me. Because we dont need you around here any more. I can talk and eat and shit.”
After that he began waking up in the morning with a transparent jelly like a tadpole’s tail all over his mouth. This jelly was what the scientists call un-D.T., Undifferentiated Tissue, which can grow into any kind of flesh on the human body. He would tear it off his mouth and the pieces would stick to his hands like burning gasoline jelly and grow there, grow anywhere on him a glob of it fell. So finally his mouth sealed over, and the whole head would have have amputated spontaneous — (did you know there is a condition occurs in parts of Africa and only among Negroes where the little toe amputates spontaneously?) — except for the eyes you dig. Thats one thing the asshole couldn’t do was see. It needed the eyes. But nerve connections were blocked and infiltrated and atrophied so the brain couldn’t give orders any more. It was trapped in the skull, sealed off. For a while you could see the silent, helpless suffering of the brain behind the eyes, then finally the brain must have died, because the eyes went out, and there was no more feeling in them than a crab’s eyes on the end of a stalk.
I’d prefer something maybe even more in-jokey, like a set of dancing Jo’bergs
How about Jonah dancing with Hitler, in a totally heterosexual way?
RBoC: Both Hitlers have their merit. I was picturing, in my unimaginative way, simply replacing the jumping-jack badger with Adolf.
I was picturing, in my unimaginative way, simply replacing the jumping-jack badger with Adolf.
You can do that easily by editing the javascript file. Assuming you’re using the SN_Burdizzo script (which you should, as opposed to the earlier one which I can’t recall),
/*
*
* If you have another image you would prefer, this is where you'd mention it.
*/
var badgerImgSrc = "http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/badger2.gif";
Self explanatory.
You can do that easily by editing the javascript file.
Mongo merely pawn in game of life.
Memo to “Blame Whitey;”
I’ve been to events like the one you described as a college freshman (voluntarily, no one “made” us do anything despite what PJM might bloviate) where I came away with a similar opinion – that is, it’s just people venting at whites and that ain’t what I’m here for. I understand why so many whites get frustrated at these events – I’m one of them. Here’s where I differ with the average white conservative, though.
First, the Democrats on the national scale don’t appeal to that sentiment; they do everything they can to cut down on it. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton wouldn’t have a prayer of winning the primary, let alone the actual election; the reason Obama won is precisely because he didn’t run as the black candidate or the white guilt candidate, but as a “post-racial” symbol of racism overcome. The only time he ever tackled the issue (however reluctantly) was in the “race speech,” in which he didn’t appeal to white guilt once – he spoke honestly about the situation, the resentments and feelings, fair and unfair, on both sides of the race line, and left it at that.
So, I might resent the way some “multicultural” college events treat the racial divide and the way some students simply use it as a forum for white-bashing. But unlike your basic conservative, I don’t understand why the hell I should be blaming my resentment on a Democratic Party that’s done everything it could to reverse, not encourage, that trend.
Second, “Blame Whitey,” like many conservatives, enjoys painting this as simply an instance of the poor guilty repentant honest white man of America just wanting to be left alone but being persecuted by the mean exploitative black, Hispanic and Asian racists.
Fucking bullshit. White racism is not dead, and the GOP is as guilty of using racial backlash as these college lefties are – and far more guilty of it than the Democratic Party. You’re the ones who were drawn to Nixon and Reagan because they ran around talking about black welfare queens driving Cadillacs with white taxpayer money. You’re the ones who switched from McCain to Bush because Bush pranced around South Carolina waving a picture of McCain’s daughter and calling her an “illegitimate black child.” You’re the ones who just spent the last thirty years with your “moral majority” being defined by Jerry “Integration Will Destroy Our Race” Falwell, and Pat “Just ‘One Man One Vote,’ Unrestricted Democracy, Would Not Be Wise” Robertson (who, if his recent comments on Haiti are any indication, still isn’t ready to move into the 21st century, or even the 1960s for that matter).
And I’ve lost count how many times I’ve seen conservative arguments in the war on terror devolve into simple race-baiting or venting of frustrations through racial terms. I was watching during that entire “He’s an Arab-Muslim-terrorist” craze that came over the McCain/Palin campaign back in 2008. I was watching when every Muslim advocacy group in America was being tarred and feathered as “terrorist” by Fox and PJM, not unlike the way civil rights groups are always accused of being “commies” by their conservative opponents. I’ve also read about Chinese commies treating their Muslims the same way they treat their democracy activists, Israelis engaging in routine murders, theft of land and large scale wars, and Europe restricting freedom of religion just to get at Muslims – and with few exceptions, conservatives cheer.
You’ve been using racial prejudice for much longer than liberals have and you’re still using it today. And I really don’t understand why just because there’s black racism and Hispanic racism out there, that means I should be signing up for white racism. You’re all the same to me, buddy. Except your gang’s by far the largest and most politically powerful one, so you can cut back on the “poor-persecuted-little-me” Sarah Palin routine.
Obambi was on the defense, as any fair minded person could see from the exchange.
Yeah, dumbshit. Like Randy Johnson is playing defense when he’s on the mound.
Cluestick to Troofy – when someone makes himself available for questions, he gets asked questions.
Looks like someone let Boo Radley out of the basement.
Shit, the Democrats could have 100 Senators, 435 members of the House, a President, and 50 Governors, and they’d still be taking up their and our time playing ‘defense’.
They’d find some reason why they needed 200 or 300 or 500 Senators and 3 or 4 Presidents and 4,000 Supreme Court Justices and maybe like a dozen Houses of Representatives before they could do what they promise they really, really wanted to do.
Tug me, Bob Owens, and I’ll go splooty sploot!
Mongo need help? I presume you use that Firefox thingy which I do not except for very rare occasions so I can’t give detailed instructions. Sorry.
FYWP. Also.
Something Chris just said triggered me. Well, not me, but this idea: I think the reason the right has had such a hard-on for ACORN recently is because it’s an organization that helps poor, mostly black folks get a voice and attempts to help them get a fair shake. While Republicans have ALWAYS had a hard-on for shafting the darkies, up until Obama was running they never bothered with going after relatively small groups with relatively small impact, for the simple reason that they were making much bigger gains when they controlled government – the gutting of EEOC, for example. But now…now that a black guy is actually the leader of the country, and perhaps still of the free world (don’t know how well that mantle fits after the past decade), in an election won fair and square and which rejected them, their ideas and their policies, they have no choice but to go after people who are least capable of fighting back.
Which is pretty much what they always do.
“But now…now that a black guy is actually the leader of the country, and perhaps still of the free world (don’t know how well that mantle fits after the past decade), in an election won fair and square and which rejected them, their ideas and their policies, they have no choice but to go after people who are least capable of fighting back.”
Not just a black guy – a former community organizer, exactly the type of person who would help run things like ACORN. The right wing’s always had a thing for going after the most defenseless people in society, but it also helps them preempt future Obamas.
I knew Boo Radley. Boo Radley was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Boo Radley.
Time for more epic of Gilgamesh.
Hey! At least have the decency to put a
***SPOILER ALERT!***
up when you post those … I haven’t gotten around to that one yet!
Everyone knows the real action is in Tablets I and XI.
By the way, that stupid Gilgamesh hero was totally wrong on its ship-building architecture, unlike the sharp naval design blueprinting exhibited in The Bible.
Isn’t that Gilgamesh thing still under copyright?
I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has actually ruled that the Epic of Gilgamesh is a person.
I’m Utnapishtim, and I approve of this message.
“over-the-top?” After all that time decrying him as ineffectual and eggheaded?
This is beyond throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. This is going back, picking up all the shit that fell off the wall, and seeing if it will stick this time. And then maybe eating some of it. Hell, this thing was pre-Shortered on delivery. You guys couldn’t mine it any further.
So effective was the president that Fox News cut away from the broadcast 20 minutes before it ended
One need say no more.
Shorter GOP:
This was a triumph!
btw, to whoever said it in this or another recent thread, “90 minute swirly” is the bestest summary I’ve seen yet.
Athankya. We have our rare moments.
Also, your mom.
Furthermore, PENIS.
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.
It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents, except at
occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind
which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies),
rattling along the house-tops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame
of the lamps that struggled against the darkness. Through one of the
obscurest quarters of London, and among haunts little loved by the
gentlemen of the police, a man, evidently of the lowest orders, was
wending his solitary way. He stopped twice or thrice at different shops
and houses of a description correspondent with the appearance of the
quartier in which they were situated, and tended inquiry for some
article or another which did not seem easily to be met with. All the
answers he received were couched in the negative; and as he turned from
each door he muttered to himself, in no very elegant phraseology, his
disappointment and discontent.
Everyone knows the real action is in Tablets I and XI.
Tablet XXIV gets pretty raunchy.
Imagine if you planned a country’s economic future using calculations exclusively based on even numbers. For ideological reasons you excluded odd numbers because you declared that they represent bigotry and have divisive nature since they cannot be divided equally in half. Absolutely all calculations for the future would then end up being wrong. This sounds insane and improbable, but what we’re doing now in the Western world is exactly this naïve.
Fuck you, asswipe. Angry and absurdly wrong mathematical metaphors are my department, you human cloaca. I don’t go down to where you work and knock the donkey dick out of your mouth, so GET YOUR OWN SCHTICK.
Obama kicked their ass, and I’ve had great fun with my GOP pals by asking them to watch it and, “Judge for yourself.”
The best part is the two I engage with most liked the idea of doing it more often, before they knew the GOP had cut and run from this idea, forever.
It’s always pathetic when losers cry. In this case, it’s pathetic and annoying. Why don’t you shut the fuck up?
Maybe it’s because they got handed their asses back, bleeding, in their hats. Why hasn’t there been a headline, “Obama visits, GOP retreat”? It captures the whole flavor of the thing on so many level!