Rage, Rage Against The Undying of the Right
In generous response to a fool who has excellent reason to re-think not just his ignorance of the “heated…politics of the 1970’s,” but indeed his ignorance of all politics prior to September, 11, 2001, Dr. Atrios sez:
I used to imagine there would be some generational shift in the media, leaving behind the previous baggage, and things might improve. But from what I can tell you have the perpetually lost in the 60s crowd, the 70s anti-partisan crowd, the 80s Reagan is The Awesome crowd, the 90s Republican Revolution and Bill Clinton’s Penis is a WMD Crowd, and then the 00s George Bush’s crotch looks awesome in that flight suit crowd.
It’s never gonna end.
No, it won’t. It might be helpful to think of it in shrill terminology of a JW tract: “Millions of wingnut memes now living will never die!!!” Because there is a system in place — that has been in place since the late ’60s — that guarantees the perpetuation of wingnut talking points.
The problem is that liberal points and counter-points to the wingnuttery have short lives. Witness the arguments over the Vietnam War: Today, liberals just remember the infighting among the war protesters, or the idealism (often reappraised by aged former radicals as naivete), or the counter-cultural ephemera surrounding the anti-war movement. What they don’t care to remember — or didn’t bother to learn (as per Gen X-ers) — was the principle that imperialist war is economically irresponsible, murderous, counterproductive, incompatible with American ideals, and racialist if not outright racist — in a word, wicked. Thus, they fell for the GWOTerra in general and the Iraq War in particular. Neither did they remember that Nixon was rotten to the core; thus when old Nixonites in the new Bush administration started talking about cheery things like freedom and humanitarianism — things that DFHs who knew the Nixonites knew that they had nothing but spite for — the liberals failed to smell a rat. Nor, still, did they remember that Bush stole a fucking election way back in 2000 (it may as well have been in the Jurassic — or the Vietnam era); so when Mr. Illegit President started championing democracy, they didn’t realize that the joke was on them. Liberals forgot their history, their identity.
In contrast, wingnuts never forget what they are about. They also know history; and since they get so little pushback from people who oh-so-can’t-be-bothered with all that fucking hippie bunk, they are free to revise or rewrite it. Like a coral reef, the calcified wingnut lies and bullshit build and build out of the sea of truth until the liberal ship is wrecked, and pirates murder the survivors. Every wingnut argument about Vietnam was stupid and wrong and immoral, and has been recycled about Iraq; so liberals, who just wanted to forget about that Vietnam shit, were susceptible to the lies. And now that Iraq has inevitably ‘gone’ Vietnam, by which I mean that it’s a pointless quagmire, clueless liberals wonder where, where are the wingnuts getting their surge-ey won’t-cut-and-run, beware-the-dolchstoss rhetoric from?!?! (The answer: from the archives, of course.)
No, it never will end. If the next Dem president ever fucks someone other than his spouse, the same wingnutty Clenis-is-WMD arguments will recycle. When the next Dem president does anything for the poor, the same ’90s-wingnut Contract On America themes will recycle (which were recycled from Reaganite bullshit, itself recycled Goldwater rhetoric, which itself was recycled from 1930s anti-New Deal screeds, which were in turn recycled from anti-Progessive propaganda; you see the lack of imagination at work here — as St. Barry of Arizona said, his ideas were old). If the next Dem president does anything about the Israel-Palestine issue or stops American warmongering in the Middle East, the same late-’70s ZOMG-Jimmy-Carter-is-Neville-Chamberlain bullshit will recycle. Wingnuts regurgitate their arguments, and hope that if they do it enough, then what’s demonstrably false in them will be perceived as plausibly true. Wishing this phenomenon away won’t stop it. The only thing to do is to remember why these arguments were wrong in the first place.
HTML:
Have you read “The Authoritarians”?
wingnuts are in a slump though. All their candidates flopped one after another. As much as I dislike McCain, he’s probably the most palatable person they could have picked. The wingnuts of the blogs, talk radio, and punditry all came up impotent in this primary. I guess all I’m saying is, the American people seem surprisingly discriminating so far in this election.
Admit it, HTML, you’re just angry because Frampton got disrespected.
But if elect Barack Obama, he’ll tame the rabid elephant. As opposed to tranqing it and putting it down like Hillary Clinton will.
Obama is the pick of the non-Democrat in the Democratic primary. Hillary Clinton is the pick of the real Democrats in the Democratic primary. She leads amongst self-IDed Democrats in overall exit polling.
McCain will beat Obama into a heap. He will be percieved as a nice kind old man and Obama will be seen an an arrogant jerk.
Hillary Clinton will make herself known as the woman who can identify with our problems and she will make McCain out to be an out of touch Bush follower.
As polling shows, Mr. Unity runs far behind Hillary in states like Florida and New Jersey. We need someone who has beaten the Republicans before, not someone whose toughest election was against Alan Keyes.
Also, our ghodforsaken Scots-Irish clansmen keep getting elected for their Enormous Leadershiphood (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton) and fvcking things up because the Scots-Irish mindset cannot resist the joint lures of Really Elaborate Storytelling, aka bullshit, and the ADHD perserveration, aka cussedness, which convinces us that we just need to throw one more punch in every friggin global bar-brawl…
It’d be nice to hope, eugenically, that Obama is enough of an out-cross that he might withstand this particular part of the American Exceptionalism meme. On the other hand, Obama’s daddy came from a trip not known for their nurturant and peace-loving natures, either.
(P.S. Nah, I’m not a physical eugenisist. Just a psychological one. “We”, Americans, keep making the same stupid mistakes because we keep repeating the same stupid stories to each other, like HTML says, only with a better vocabulary and less snark.)
Hoosier X:
Have you read “The Authoritarians”?
is that like “The Aristocrats”?
On the topic ad hand, it DOES eventually end. I could try trolling some conservitard blogs to see if I can get a rise out them on the topic of Free Silver, but my bet is that the typical response is “Hunh?”. It may take decades, but some heated controversies just become totally irrelevant.
It just *seems* like it takes forever when you’re trapped in the noise machine.
Chroist Jay-sus, Mr. Allen — isn’t there a caber that needs tossing or a sesshuin that needs crashing in your neighborhood? You making a pest of yourself is no way to gain votes for Hillary, silly man, and I tell you this as a Hillary supporter. Go find something physical to work off your excess of energy or you’re going to end up with hairy palms before the convention!
“On the topic ad hand, it DOES eventually end. I could try trolling some conservitard blogs to see if I can get a rise out them on the topic of Free Silver, but my bet is that the typical response is “Hunh?”. It may take decades, but some heated controversies just become totally irrelevant.”
Some talking points just don’t get recycled to neo-conservatism, but are still there. Your average wingnut might be unconcerned about fiat currency, but Ron Paul would like to go back to the Gold Standard.
Robert “Traitor Bob” Novak is pushing some crap about Obama today.
And he’s relying on Times of London reporting to do it. Murdoch’s people have identified their enemy, so now Hillary is their friend.
Look man, I understand your frustration … to a point. Yes there are loud, stupid, obnoxious people roaming the world. Yes there are people who will claim that Bush was the best pResident Evar to their dying breath, scream that victory is just around the corner in Iraq, stomp their feet and yell “The economy is fine you commies!” until they’re blue in the face and so on and so on and so on.
The great part is, they’re all losers who backed losers and losers don’t write the history books. The more they shout their lies, the more insane they sound, the more they’ll only attract the most dysfunctional portion of society. Result: fRight Wing = The Silly Party.
Hooray! They can replace the Libertarians.
It’s not really that wingnuts know history better than libs, it’s just that they have no qualms about re-writing it. If they are caught at it, they just yell louder.
Does Ira Allen remind anyone else of Gary Ruppert?
Hoosier X mentioned Altemeyer’s work, which, at heart, isn’t that revolutionary at all. A certain percent of humanity will always be intensely stupid. They are our battle with the forces of evolution. Either we’ll figure out a way to minimize their effect, especially the effect of their chosen elite, the intensely stupid and intensely greedy, or they’ll take the species down. The persistence of their tribal myths is part of humanity’s inherent stupidity. Effect, not cause. Gotta deal with the dumb, and whoever finally figures out how to do that will be like Jebus, only cooler.
In my more nihilistic moments I wonder if global warming might ultimately be a net gain for humanity, if it goes so extreme as to collapse civilizations and level the playing field a bit.
Nelson, yes. Personally, I’m upper-80% certain they’re the same person, who really needs a second job or something.
Unfortunately, the far right extremist position will be validated when Congress subpoenas Angelina Jolie to testify how awesome everything is in Iraq.
The fact is, I wanna fuck myself. I wanna fuck myself. I wanna fuck myself. I wanna, fuck, my, self. AND NO_ONE ELSE!!!!
HTML–This is a much better line of argument than all the non-stop irony I see on display on progressive blogs (excepting this one, because you guys do it with such humor)…but when Glenn or Atrios or who(m)ever says things like “Bush Displays Continued Love Of Constitution With New FISA Warnings” or some such “ironic” title, it actually reinforces the wingnut talking points and comes off as passive-aggressive, will-to-fail hackery.
Wingnuts do not understand irony or humor. They take everything literally, at face value, like the surface of a mirror. The ONLY way to counteract their recycled lies is to attack them directly, un-ironically, brutally–put them on the defensive at every turn. The cowardly right wing trolls who lurk in these threads are frightened, fat, alcoholic nobodies who, in the months I’ve been scanning their illiterate screeds, have zero sense of identity, self-worth, history, politics, or democracy–they’re insane, stupid, pants-pissing little sheep. You don’t argue with zombies, you crush them. If we don’t then we deserve to lose.
Whoop! Whoop! Pedantry alert.
Anne Laurie: For a more, er, nuanced look at the way UK (including Scots-Irish) immigration shaped US history may I recommend David Hackett Fischer’s ‘Albion’s Seed; Four British Folkways in America’. I first heard of it in an excellent series by Sara at Orcinus examining the way that Royalist cavaliers’ values shaped the modern South. It is a real doorstop but an excellent read, academically rigorous and of immense value at analyzing how we got to be like this. For those not inclined towards 900 page works of historical exploration Sara did an excellent synopsis, which can still be found in their archives.
The way that regional cultural tropes from 17th century Britain developed in the Colonial petri dish and continue to bedevil us today is absolutely fascinating.
That ends this pedantry insert. I’m so ready for the SN! Pedant Olympics.
To me, the wingnuts/Authoritarians are a catastrophic combination of the capabilities of the Four Horsemen with the sensibilities of the Three Stooges.
Hard to be hopeful about the continued survival of human civilization in the face of that.
The irony of our Hillary troll’s argument is that the way you kill the wingnut memes – or if not kill them, render them impotent – is to rebut them, every time, with truth and common sense, like Obama has been doing (see his response to their attacks on his patriotism). Not like Hillary “I still think the war was a pretty good idea” “I’m down with laws against burning flags” has responded. Think about it…in 2004, we were being told by the retards that Kerry “faked” his war service, which would have made a liar of the US military, who we were being told by the retards at the same time we have to revere. All Kerry had to do was respond with an accusation (truth being no part of the currency here) that questioning his war record was “attacking the troops”. And then let the reichtards stumble through the hall of mirrors of their own making.
If by “knowing how to respond to Republicans” means “giving in to the Republicans on everything that matters” then yes, Hillary would be the candidate of choice. Which is why Gary…er, I mean Ira, is here tooting her horn.
I too am really, really tired of supposed liberals trying to convince us that the main problem with Vietnam were the arguments by ‘the left’, who were, by the way, correct, and still are.
You see this in these campaign days with a lot of gleeful sniping against George McGovern, who supposedly was “wrong,” and “anti-communist” nutbag “Scoop” Jackson is deified as The True Liberal Interventionist We Really Should All Be.
The whole “3 to 5 million people who died in Indochina as a result of the U.S. war against the civilians of Vietnam, Laos, and particularly Cambodia, especially handing the Cambodian peasantry straight to the Khmer Rouge by nearly a decade of intense bombing evolving to carpet bombing” goes away, or even worse, becomes the fault of the left because they failed to make their arguments or dissent or protests in the exact, angelically, immortally-prescient forms which would have appealed to callow and snobby liberals.
Sometimes they’ll even admit that — ‘Yes, so your arguments were right — you still pissed a lot of people like me off because there was this one time you said this thing I didn’t like.’
So a lot of snotty liberals feel like it’s okay to assume the Horowitzian argument that Noam Chomsky luuuuuved him some Khmer Rouge because when he first wrote about it he used U.S. State Department statistics in reporting about the estimates of those killed rather than the biggest numbers possible, and because he noted exactly what the U.S. CIA had been saying, that the Johnson / Nixon bombing of rural Cambodia were driving the already starving peasantry right into the hands of the Khmer Rouge.
By the end of these snipes, one walks away almost wondering if it was Noam Chomsky who bombed the peasants into the hands of the Khmer Rouge, rather than a coalition of lunatic war hawks in the “Scoop” Jackson mold and right wing war hawks of the “bomb them into the Stone Age” variety.
And I bring this up not to belabor any points about Noam, but to use it as an example of the way real dissent gets regularly stabbed not in the back but in the stomach by otherwise intelligent “liberals” who neither know nor care better.
It’s this style of argument which led reputable liberals to find reasons not to get so concerned when Reagan unleashed a fake force of terrorists to wage war on Nicaraguan civilians and infrastructure, or when he and his Democratic Congress backed a death squad government in El Salvador (and sub-death squads in Honduras), and an actual genocide in Guatemala.
Because what’s always more important to such types is to seem on the side of rational nobility and never, ever to seem captured by the presumably raving loonies on the hate-America left who were insanely hoping that someone out there would offer more than token opposition to a foreign policy based on slaughtering a lot of our close neighbors, and doing so so murderously that an entire generation of Central American immigrants came to the U.S. to escape the U.S.-backed grisly slaughter in their own nations.
You know what?
That’s why I wasn’t surprised it was soooooooooo easy to string a lot of these arrogant snot types along with pathetic arguments for an invasion of Iraq. Because for all the objective reasons not to do so, the invasion would offer the most importantest thing ever — the ability for upright liberal and ‘moderate’ and centrist snobs to once again show how they weren’t the crazy loony left, and by gosh this time we’ll show ’em we’re right.
Damn. That bit about Chomsky sounds like it could have come from the mouth of St. Ralph of Nader, if only you substitute “Gore” for “Chomsky” and “Iraq” for “Vietnam”.
McCain will beat Obama into a heap. He will be percieved as a nice kind old man and Obama will be seen an an arrogant jerk.
I love it when nice kind old men beat people into a heap.
Jennifer: I don’t understand.
the way you kill the wingnut memes – or if not kill them, render them impotent – is to rebut them, every time, with truth and common sense
Yeah, that did John Kerry a lot of good.
You don’t legitimize their rumors or try to answer them mildly. You smash their rumors.
There’s a reason why the rumors about Obama being a Muslim refuse to die. Because Obama just refuses to rebut the rumors forcefully.
When Hillary wins Texas and Ohio tomorrow, then she is the frontrunner and she will drive the campaign into Pennsylvania and beyond.
Barack Obama and his goons have outspent Hillary Clinton by a 3 to 1 margin in Ohio and Texas, but they haven’t gotten a single legitimate lead in Ohio.
Seriously, Ira, go away. You’re making the Clinton supporters rethink their positions.
Jennifer, I’m with El Cid: I don’t understand the comparison either.
There are liberal, as well as conservative, authoritarians. Your choice of political party, religion, even tv shows, are affected by whether or not you’re authoritarian.
Non-As use facts, logic and reason. Authoritarians usually don’t, because they usually act out of obedience, and facts and reason will interfere with that. That’s why Ira Allen is such a crummy troll–he doesn’t realize that using authoritarian arguments with non-authoritarians is useless and insulting. And that’s why non-authoritarians must constantly insist that others don’t get to ignore facts for their own reality.
You guys have seen how a simple recitation of facts chases away some trolls. And Pastor Bob ran away with his tails between his legs when he was faced with contradictory statements from his Authority. He couldn’t argue, because his only basis for argument is the BIble.
It’s not just the stupid, although there’s a barrel-load of that floating around. It’s people who are so in denial that their entire lives depend on lying to themselves, and everyone else.
He will be percieved as a nice kind old man
this is a perfect example of the 180 degree cluelessness of our friendly local troll.
If there’s anything that McCain is NOT perceived as, its a nice kind, old man. McCain is an arrogant, self-confident guy with a quick temper, and a self-cultivated reputation for telling it like it is. Those who admire him do so because he is a so-called “straight shooter” – you can argue whether he is such a thing or not, but his own cultivated image is the antithesis of a “nice kind old man.”
There are enough inherent contradictions in Allen’s post to choke a mule. McCain is kind but violent, Hillary is behind in Texas but will win, Obama has goons but is too mild to rebut lies, Kerry rebutted lies but it didn’t do any good, so Obama must rebut lies. And so on. Ridiculous, really.
Barack Obama and his goons
This is where Ira/Gary/saul/Booger reveal who they really are.
Seriously, Ira, go away. You’re making the Clinton supporters rethink their positions.
It doesn’t look like there are any other Clinton supporters around. The Barry O cult got here awhile ago, sort like how the cult got to Markos and bought him off.
Obama followers are a cult. Clinton followers are winners. Very convincing.
Ira, you’re a pest and an idiot. you’re here to sow antipathy between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters, and it’s not working here. We all see through you, that you’re a right wing troll. You’re a joke.
What’s really vile about you, Ira, is that even though you are too feckless to incite it, you like the idea of hatred between Clinton and Obama supporters. The reality is, of course, the vast majority of Democrats will get behind whichever candidate wins the primary. The supposed superior skills of Hillry that you tout will be immediately put into practice on Obama’s behalf – or vice versa – so your ugly little theses are already worthless.
By definition, cult members follow emotion and superstitution more often than facts and reason.
Obama cult members follow the claims that he is somehow more electable and likeable than Clinton, when his favorability ratings are just as bad as Clinton’s (keeping in mind that Clinton has been smeared for over 15 years and Obama has barely been touched).
The Clinton Comeback comes to life tomorrow when Hillary wins Ohio and Texas. Even the anti-Clinton anti-woman bigots in the media will have to acknowledge that fact.
I should clarify that when I used the term above “snotty liberals” I wasn’t describing liberals as a group as snotty or snobby; rather, I was specifically describing a sub-set of people who identify themselves as liberals.
Maybe it’s the opposite. Maybe the significant group should be “snobby and snotty” people, some of whom are liberals, some of whom are right wing, and most of whom probably don’t even care what their own political leanings are.
El Cid is so right that it makes me depressed and bitter. Really good rant, Cid.
Is it always going to be this way? Can obvious historical fact and logic win in our lifetime?
That’s why I come to SN!, it is a place where there are folks that remember what really happened.
And sometimes there’s nazi goreng with pot-stikas.
What do you all make of this?
“You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?”
This is another example of her equivocating, her trying to triangulate, and while I think that triangulation is OK when you’re talking about nuanced points of policy, when you’re talking about something that’s more principled, it just feels creepy and dishonest.
Here’s a woman who’s had people – nuts like Gary/sau/booger – spread rumors for decades that she’s a lesbian, that she’s cold, that she’s in a loveless marriage, etc. So when they come back to her with a similar specious rumor about someone else, why does she equivocate? Why the “as far as I know” crap? doesn’t she just stand on principle and say “Absolutely not, and I don’t appreciate the fact that you’re giving any credibility to this specious rumor.”
The fact is, John McCain is an honorable man, and a vote for Hussein Obama is a vote for the status quo and big business.
Oh look, a giant sack of money! I’ll just put that over here.
Anyway, the fact is, George W. Bush isn’t that much different than what Al Gore would have been, and…oh, whatever, you’re not paying attention to what I’m saying, you’re just paying attention to what you think I’m saying. I’m for the Iraq war. I’m taking money from John McCain, just like I take money from Halliburton. I’ve made suckers of you all, and you’ve refused to even notice. And you’re not even noticing now. Heh indoozle!
I too am really, really tired of supposed liberals trying to convince us that the main problem with Vietnam were the arguments by ‘the left’, who were, by the way, correct, and still are.
Same here, the candidate for those liberals is Obama. Obama opposes universal health care, unions, and favors social security privatization.
Obama’s entire foreign policy experience involves ‘making’ one speech (no proof he ever made it) and choosing Joe Lieberman to be his mentor in the Senate.
By definition, cult members follow emotion and superstitution more often than facts and reason.
This statement is only pertinent if all obama followers are cult members. A cult can mean “an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.” (dictionary.com) Or “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.” But that latter definition is utterly paranoid when applied to the most mainstream of politician, a senator running for president.
Therefore the basis for your statements (Clinton will win because the Obama cult is fooling itself) is inaacurate and your conclusion cannot follow.
You are not persuasive.
This is too much work; I’m going back to mocking, which is much more fun. Every time you shovel one load of manure out of the way, another shows up.
“You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?”
She answered “Of Course Not”
What part of Of Course Not do you not understand?
Besides, didn’t Obama say that he took Hillary at her word that she didn’t spread that photo of him in Kenya? I’m sure that was fresh in her mind as she answered.
I’m not going to argue with you Ira. Run along now and spread your Obama hate somewhere else.
Obama turned Condi Rice gay. Mhm. Broke her heart back in the day so badly it turned her off men forever. N yes, that’s how it happens. Eff that inborn desires noise.
Also, fuck cripples.
The term “cult” is not usually applied to people who back something risky, improbable, or unlikely, but who not only back that which is impossible or proven false, but who do so at great potential cost to themselves and others.
So, people who support a local sports team which is unlikely to win but at least somewhat shows the chance of doing so aren’t necessarily a “cult”.
Supporting Barack Obama because of what he might do once in office isn’t necessarily “cultic” unless you are doing so in hopes of, say, the literally impossible — that once elected, He will allow us all to levitate and gain powers over all that is on this realm.
Next, it isn’t clear that should Barack Obama be elected that he would soon have us all living in a compound in rural Texas or Guyana going down in flames as his last remaining believers begin to head for available exits.
I mean, what? If Obama fails to be the next FDR-JFK-MLK that his most fervent admirers hope, he’s still a sane guy who’s president and who isn’t a disgusting chattering monkey trained in getting his Dad’s corrupt friends to bail out his private losses.
That’s a “cult”?
I like using the term “cult” to talk about right wing free market fundamentalists who talk about “the Laffer curve” (“If you cut taxes for the wealthy then revenues rise KTHXBYE”), but it’s not really that appropriate because most of its strongest pushers neither believe in the hypothesis nor care, they just care that they throw enough BS so that they get their tax cuts.
Neither did they remember that Nixon was rotten to the core; thus when old Nixonites in the new Bush administration started talking about cheery things like freedom and humanitarianism — things that DFHs who knew the Nixonites knew they had nothing but spite for — the liberals failed to smell a rat.
I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. The issue shouldn’t be Nixon’s (debatable) personal virtue, but whether for what it is those Nixonites in BushCO stand and why that should cause us to smell a rat. Arguments over Nixon’s virtue are distracting (and that’s part of the point as far as the wingnuts are concerned) from the real issues. But claiming “Nixon’s rotten to the core” just feeds into those arguments rather than focusing the debate on the real issues.
And are wingnuts really that knowledgeable about history?
Other than that, I agree with you 100%. I think …
Wow! Obama has goons!! Now I really like the guy!
And are wingnuts really that knowledgeable about history?
Probably not.
Hey Gary, when did you start writing for The Onion?
“You Know What’s Stupid? Everything I Don’t Understand.”
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/you_know_whats_stupid
Favorite paragraph:
And don’t even get me started on complex and sophisticated notions I can’t possibly wrap my head around. That stuff makes me want to puke. Just knowing there are people out there who like—actually like—interacting with concepts that overwhelm my feeble consciousness makes me embarrassed to be an American. I don’t like it in our homes, I don’t like it in our schools, I don’t like it outside of my comfort zone—well, I just plain don’t like it. And if that makes me closed-minded, well, then I guess I’ll have to dismiss that accusation outright in order to avoid being introspective even for a moment.
And I bring this up not to belabor any points about Noam, but to use it as an example of the way real dissent gets regularly stabbed not in the back but in the stomach by otherwise intelligent “liberals” who neither know nor care better.
It’s this style of argument which led reputable liberals to find reasons not to get so concerned when Reagan unleashed a fake force of terrorists to wage war on Nicaraguan civilians and infrastructure, or when he and his Democratic Congress backed a death squad government in El Salvador (and sub-death squads in Honduras), and an actual genocide in Guatemala.
I know that game. It angers me too. There must be a way past it, though.
The whole thing’s just as good as that bit.
Yeah, move over Grey Lady, the Onion is now the paper of record. It’s Parody World now.
Susan,
That is way sad. And did you catch the part where the author says he’s been a public school teacher for 27 years?
Mockery is the Welfare Queen of Liberal Fascism.
Yes, let’s hope he didn’t do much damage.
And not supporting military action in Iraq from the onset.
Next!
This was the other chestnut in the recent Onion:
“This time I’m serious,” Bush said. “I am ready to make a fresh start if we can just put the past behind us. I promise.” An estimated 35 million citizens listened to the president’s televised remarks while silently crying behind locked bathroom doors.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_vows_to_make_it_up_to_country
When there doesn’t seem to be that much about the policies of either candidate (and what is out there is disputed massively), doesn’t it just come down to a personality contest, where you HAVE to base your judgement on personal preference? I wouldn’t compare that to being in a cult, as it seems like people are readily prepared to change their minds if they learn more facts about either person.
Ace of Spades…Jonah Goldberg…separated at birth with a crowbar?
it was Noam Chomsky who bombed the peasants into the hands of the Khmer Rouge
*sigh* When it comes to anything liberal all nodes lead to Noam. Of course NC didn’t personally drop the bomb. He did something much worse – he said unkind, vile, nasty (albeit all of them true and accurate) things baout the people who ordered the bombs to be droppped. It is that long standing persecution of the downtrodden
right wing extremistsconservative “movement” that’s to blame, you see?The photoshopped box is missing something: a day-glo orange sticker that says: “FREE INSIDE! A coupon for a FREE Party Size bag of Cheetos™!”
When there doesn’t seem to be that much about the policies of either candidate (and what is out there is disputed massively)
Yeah. It’s not like just anyone could go peruse the 60 pages of detailed policy statements on some website somewhere. It’s all so equivocal! He just makes nice speeches. Waah waaah waaah.
{Effing spam filter}
When there doesn’t seem to be that much about the policies of either candidate (and what is out there is disputed massively),
I was trying to linkie to Barack’s 60 page “Obama’s blueprint for Change” which has detailed policy statements. I mean, it’s not like just anyone can go look that shit up, right?
As usual, you’re right. This is exactly the problem I’m seeing on a couple of totally in the tank Sen. Clinton websites. They somehow feel that you never have to even say you’re sorry for a vote to go to war & a war that did not have to happen. People have & are dying, for Christ’s sake. I suppose everything would be OK if someone, anyone, would have named Bill Clinton as America’s first Latino president as well.
….AAAAAND then he voted for Ralph Nader a few decades later.
You’re either fully with the solution, or you’re fully the problem. Noam’s made his bed.
Actually Obama said he didn’t know how he would vote on the IWR resolution.
Sheesh. Someone get the tranq gun, one of these boobs might bite his tongue off out of sheer hatred.
Re: Authoritarians
“‘The greatest good for the greatest number’ is the refuge of scoundrels; compassion takes place one person at a time” -ee cummings
Try the Facts.
Clinton and her gang are certainly entitled to raise questions about Obama’s experience and his record–including on the war. Though Obama did speak out against the war before entering the Senate, he was not a leading voice of antiwar opposition in his first years as a senator. (Neither was she during those that period.) But Clinton and her aides have been peddling false information about Obama to undercut one of his primary arguments: she voted for the war; I was against it. Engaging in such disingenuous attacks may help Clinton beat back Obama, but it is hardly the way for her to counter Obama’s claim that she represents poltics-as-usual. It only proves his point.
This is central, etc.
I’m currently reading Neal Stephenson’s The Baroque Cycle…currently in the middle of Odalisque…and the parallels between batshit nuttery hanging on in the 1600s, and gooper batshit nuttery hanging on today, is quite astounding.
Plus, I learned how the condom was invented by horny Turks.
Once Clinton defeats Obama tomorrow, I hope Obama withdraws and announces his support of Senator Clinton.
We shouldn’t strengthen the candidacy of John McCain by continuing Obama’s no-hoper campaign past tomorrow.
When there doesn’t seem to be that much about the policies of either candidate (and what is out there is disputed massively), doesn’t it just come down to a personality contest, where you HAVE to base your judgement on personal preference?
Leaving aside the policies – which are, you know, available and stuff – there’s more than personality to this nomination contest: monarch or commoner?
“But if elect Barack Obama, he’ll tame the rabid elephant. As opposed to tranqing it and putting it down like Hillary Clinton will.”
Sorry, but there’s absolutely no reason to think Hillary will do this, based on her own record. [cough]Iraq vote[/cough] , many other votes.
One could say that she’s only voted that way to get into the White House; but I am pretty sure that she’ll continue to give the rabid right-wing concessions all the way. And they’ll continue spitting on her for it.
It’s a political version of Stockholm syndrome.
We shouldn’t strengthen…
‘We’ what? You got a mouse in your pocket there, Ira?
El Cid – Sorry to be so late on the uptake – been working…I was referring to St. Ralph’s claim that Al Gore, too, would have gone to war with Iraq. Which we all know is crap, but it’s St. Ralph’s way of “proving” that he was right when he said there is “no difference” between Bush and Gore. Which is kind of like walking away from the Chomsky thing with the belief that it was Chomsky who bombed the Cambodians…because St. Ralph also knows better.
Condoms were used in ancient Egypt.
Wait — what? Noam’s “made his bed” because a Massachusetts lefty backed Ralph Nader while making public caveats that people in swing states may want to be careful about doing so?
Is this now the one single solitary measure for you — that if anyone at any time ever supported one of Ralph Nader’s presidential campaigns then that’s all you need to know?
If so, then stop commenting, and just repeat that.
Oh, right.
This Ira Allen troll reminds me of the Kevin and / or Saul model. “We shoulds” and “I hopes” abound. As if the troll was asked what it hoped for / cared about, and as if it hasn’t been made abundantly clear that its tedium is dragging down teh snark.
Barack Obama is currently on his third chance to finish off Hillary. He had a shot in New Hampshire and choked. He had a shot on Super Tuesday and choked.
He has a shot tomorrow and he will choke.
Obama is not going to close the deal and that will devastate his electability argument, no matter how many braindead Obama cultys want to move the goalposts.
And monkeys will fly out of Ira’s ass…
Legalize said,
March 3, 2008 at 20:48
This Ira Allen troll reminds me of the Kevin and / or Saul model. “We shoulds” and “I hopes” abound. As if the troll was asked what it hoped for / cared about, and as if it hasn’t been made abundantly clear that its tedium is dragging down teh snark.
Also the deliberate historical errors. It’s act is even lamer than SNL these days.
Looks to me like it’s Hillary’s braindead supporters who are the cultists. We’re not drinking your koolaid, now go Cheney yourself.
/looks around for a bag of dicks
Isn’t Ira Allen the guy that made those disaster movies, and all those 1960s sci-fi TV series, like Lost in Space?
Dude, I am so down with the guy who made Lost in Space! Can I have your autograph?
I’m changing my vote to Hitlery!
“Danger, Will Robinson!”
It’s an excellent read, Dag. He gets a few details wrong but captures the stream of collective consciousness through it all pretty well. But do keep in mind, it aint history.
Really and true, Ira, no one cares what you say…long as you pull the lever for Democrat whether Clinton or Obama win. I mean, you are gonna pull for Obama if he’s the nominee, you’re not gonna vote McCain or Ron Paul out of some misguided sense of whatever the fuck it is you’re babbling about?
I mean, right?
Also, I believe, Hoosier, he also made the greatest television show every produced, the deep and prophetic “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea”
Admiral Nelson and Capt. Crane were my very first heroes…
mikey
It’s out for Mac already!?! Yays!
No way, I was SO going to vacation this summer in Qwghlm. I was feeling a little bilious.
El Cid — I love you.
The only song I’m aware of about Irwin Allen.
Lyrics:
http://www.lyrics007.com/Killdozer%20Lyrics/Man%20Vs%20Nature%20Lyrics.html
Music:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B0000019H6001005/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_005
“No less a man than Lorne Greene” always cracks me up.
I believe this is the Ira Allen who produced the shallow and prophylactic, “Voyage to See What’s on his Bottom”.
You guys better stop! Ace is gonna come over here, he’s gonna come over here and he’s gonna come over here and scoff at this mockery!
I am glad to have taken but one small step to repair my damaged relationship with clowns.
the deep and prophetic “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea”
Which will always live in my mind as the Mad magazine parody version “Voyage to See what’s on the Bottom.”
the parallels between batshit nuttery hanging on in the 1600s
If you want teh authentic 17th-C batshit nuttery, I recommend Stephenson’s primary sources.
I love it when nice kind old men beat people into a heap.
“Granddads with Cudgels III” was easily the best of the series; after that it became rather formulaic.
Though I see on the next thread that McCain has been “chastising surrogates”, so he may be ready for a return to the Adult DVD industry if his political career tanks.
You’re either fully with the solution, or you’re fully the problem.
Ah, the favorite slogan of all simple-minded authoritarians, from Jesus to Dubya. Yer either with me or agin me, boy! Now choose up so’s I know whether to shoot ya or not!
Grow up, you fucking moron.
I second the Emperor! While I can only laugh at the ObamaHate of trolls like I.A., who boast that the Royal Dynasty Clintons feel us poor plebians’ pain, I’m proud of having voted for Nader in ’00 rather than the deathly dull corporate butt puppet Gore model. To you Gore lovers, you also voted for his wunnaful VP choice Rape Gurney Joe “Likud” Lieberman. You may wish to conveniently forget this, but I won’t.
Since I live in Calif. my vote did nothing to put Ditatorator-Deciderator Chimp Boy in, but I’ve had to put up w/ years of excoriation & hatred from “liberals” (some even borderline friends) who see me as a monster on the level of Gingrich or Santorum. (Again, I can only remind these folks they voted for Lieberman.) I hope someday this country will have a third party– shit, given the lack of effectiveness & continued capitulation of Reid-Pelosi I’d even settle for a Second Party!
But “the solution” is your party line, & I’m able to figure out my solution for myself. To quote Grouch Marx, if I must believe either you or my lyin’ eyes, I’ll continue to rely on my eyes.
Oops– Groucho, obviously.
But “the solution” is your party line, & I’m able to figure out my solution for myself.
I’m very proud of you.
I appreciate this post very much, as I always do when I see something that presents the situation clearly and truthfully. It’s the sort of thing that actually gives me hope–a proper diagnosis is the first step to an effective cure, after all.
The real problem was the Democratic Party’s inability to realize that in George McGovern they had their Barry Goldwater. Where might America be today if it been able in 1972 to take the long view?
You know what? I’m sick of the left-wingers telling me what the right-wing is going to want me to believe. It’s amazing how wonderful your life is when you stop watching TV. The talking points never even reach your ears; you are in control of your own news. If this means you are selective and biased in news coverage, so be it. What’s the harm in only reading news that is truthful and rational? I don’t give equal time to idiots.
[…] HTML Mencken, “Rage, Rage Against The Undying of the Right” […]
I’m simply here to voice my objection to the slander leveled at Gen X-ers…
I’m learned.
[…] LINK TO THE FULL STORY HERE: THE NEW RIGHT IS THE OLD RIGHT […]
I live in Mississippi. One of my good friends here grew up in the little town of Philadelphia, over in the eastern central part of the state. That was where those 3 civil rights workers were killed.
She is white. Her father, a minister, was known to occasionally provide meals and lodging to some freedom summer and other civil rights workers who would come though town. As you can imagine, this made him relatively unpopular with some elements in town.
In her office, my friend has a piece of paper in a frame on the wall. It is a 40-year old flyer that the local Klan chapter had distributed accusing her father of sympathizing and collaborating with the “outsiders”.
What really stuck me was the phrasing- “blah blah blah….has been openly giving aid and comfort to civil rights troublemakers.”
I first noticed it sometime in ’05 and I was really stunned how that phrase had been recycled after damn near fifty years and they hadn’t even changed the WORDING.
No, it will never end. But it gets easier to spot.
I’m simply here to voice my objection to the slander leveled at Gen X-ers…
Well, I’m a Gen X-er, too. You may not have fallen for the bullshit. I didn’t fall for it. But too many of our coevals did. Now if they butch up and admit fault, that’s one thing. But when they, as per the idiot Atrios quoted, continually take pride in their ignorance and still after all the Bush failures slander the people who did get it right all along, well, that’s when they can fuck themselves.
continually take pride in their ignorance and still after all the Bush failures slander the people who did get it right all along, well, that’s when they can fuck themselves.
Agreed.
Closing tag.
tl;dr
yzjplqvor uipta qtafrs doipw tpam eofasnjx tdgamerlo