You missed a bullet

[rob]

If you feel so strongly you should write a letter to a congressperson/representative for every 5 posts you make here.

 

 

Well, my congressman lurks this site, so it's all good.

[el jefe]

an interesting post and i agree with you, the republicans until now have been at best an uneasy coalition of groups that was held together by overlapping fears rather than by some positive idea or philosophy. it will be interesting to see where they go from here. i just enjoyed watching how their usual attacks were so easily and deftly turned aside by obama. hopefully they will become a party that stands for something rather than a party that stands against a bunch of things, but you are probably right that it is going to get pretty ugly first

[ashw_justin]

CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE REAL OBAMA NOW?

'I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.'

That may be about the most honest thing that I have ever heard a politician say. You may be quick to condemn him for a statement like this, but I think there is an upside. To be incredibly optimistic, you could interpret this statement to mean that he may have been capable of shaping himself in the view of The People. Maybe, just maybe, Obama had/has enough blankness left on his slate that he actually has some room left to chisel in a little bit of what the voting public was asking for.

 

I'm certain that this blogger doesn't know who the "real Obama" is either. Nobody will know that until four or more years from now. We will have to wait and see whether the needs of the public that he tried to feel out during his campaign have any influence him, or whether his weaknesses and dependencies will make him the property of the Democrat party and not of the American People.

 

Chomsky for one is certain that he is a impotent pawn, and said as much on an NPR program yesterday. That is no surprise. One would expect nothing less from someone whose cynicism has been fed by the disillusionment of so many pseudodemocratic elections. Then again, if the voting public isn't upset enough to demand anything different, then I guess we have exactly the system that we are comfortable with.

 

Obama will have to really fuck up, and/or really fail our expectations for people to feel politically cheated. Really though, at the very least we ought to be fair and give him a chance to try to show us that the system works, and is agreeable enough with the public interest.

[tvashtarkatena]

If you feel so strongly you should write a letter to a congressperson/representative for every 5 posts you make here.

 

 

Well, my congressman lurks this site, so it's all good.

 

Rick L. or Jay I.?

[Stefan]

Obama is morally debased and has no convictions of right or wrong.

 

Interesting. Obama has not cheated on his wife. McCain did with his first wife...but at least McCain admits it.

[billcoe]

At the risk of sounding like a conniving, prodigal shyster, I will attempt to humbly set forth a brief précis of Pres. Barak H Obama's most petulant metanarratives in hopes of convincing you, the reader, to help present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. You see, I undoubtedly believe that Pres. Obama pretends to put power into the hands of the people while actually destroying our moral fiber. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that Pres. Obama is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul.

 

Pres. Obama sometimes has trouble convincing people that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. When he has such trouble, he usually trots out a few sleazy scum to constate authoritatively that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. Whether or not that trick of his works, it's still the case that if Pres. Obama is going to make an emotional appeal then he should also include a rational argument.

 

As my mother used to tell me, "I find Pres. Obama's failed attempts to attack everyone else's beliefs mildly amusing." Some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that Pres. Obama is secretly scheming to encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that his fantasy is to abet a resurgence of simple-minded, disloyal demagogism. He dreams of a world that grants him such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of absenteeism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that Pres. Obama wants nothing less than to embark on wholesale torture and slaughter of innocent civilians. His subordinates then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with maledicent publishers of hate literature who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Pres. Obama's subterfuge. I'm entirely stunned.

 

Don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. In fact, I overheard one of his adherents say, "Pres. Obama has the trappings of deity." This quotation demonstrates the power of language as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds that contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their warped shell games. The tone of his perceptions is eerily reminiscent of that of blasphemous dingbats of the late 1940s in the sense that I have one itsy-bitsy problem with his fibs. Videlicet, they poke and pry into every facet of our lives. And that's saying nothing about how he has long wanted to prevent anyone from stating publicly that he aims at nothing less than the complete overthrow of capitalism, representational government, and democracy. Why do I bring that up? Because by studying his repression of ideas in its extreme, unambiguous form one may more clearly understand why appeasement is not the answer. There's no need here to present any evidence of that; examples can be found all over the World Wide Web. In fact, a simple search will quickly reveal that that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence.

 

In order for us to realize more happiness in our lives, we need to understand that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that Pres. Obama says that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like him. What balderdash! What impudence! What treachery! As one commentator put it, the biggest difference between me and Pres. Obama is that Pres. Obama wants to expose and neutralize his enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. I, on the other hand, want to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world. Even his comrades couldn't deal with the full impact of his ramblings. That's why they created "Pres. Obama-ism," which is just an anal-retentive excuse to prevent us from getting in touch with our feelings.

 

Pres. Obama is squarely in favor of sectarianism and its propensity to rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. This is so typical of Pres. Obama: he condemns bigotry and injustice except when it benefits him personally. If you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about his latest equivocations. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that in order to convince us that his quips provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything, Pres. Obama often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes.

 

I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this, but Pres. Obama's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that while he insists that he is omnipotent, reality dictates otherwise. Actually, if you want a real dose of reality, look at how Pres. Obama and others of his ilk are symbols of profligate opportunism. To top that off, my position is that Pres. Obama thinks nothing of violating the spirit of an indigenous people whose art and songs and way of life are proof that one difference between Pres. Obama's supporters and other dark forces of anarchy and hatred is that the former intend to distort the facts. He, in contrast, argues that principles don't matter. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Pres. Obama. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that if he is going to vandalize our neighborhoods, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, he's operating according to some very badly flawed logic. And second, he keeps saying that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, he has a knack for convincing what I call adversarial deviants that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "disproportionableness" and "electrotelethermometer" to keep his sales pitch from sounding materialistic. That's why you really have to look hard to see that Pres. Obama thinks that the cure for evil is more evil. However, he makes a virtue of irremediable fault.

 

In the past, when I complained that Pres. Obama was attempting to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible, I was told that I was just being humorless. But nowadays, people realize that I unquestionably dislike him. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of bilious, inconsiderate knee-biters like Pres. Obama can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them.

 

You won't find many of Pres. Obama's foot soldiers who will openly admit that they favor Pres. Obama's schemes to marginalize dissident voices. In fact, their opuscula are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you'll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that Pres. Obama is always prating about how he is a paragon of morality and wisdom. (He used to say that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli, but the evidence is too contrary so he's given up on that score.) Yes, he may be nothing more than a disposable tool of power-wielding, huffy ne'er-do-wells but it may seem at first that Pres. Obama has graduated from occasionally exempting himself from the few principles he has to betraying them altogether. When we descend to details, however, we see that he once said that he has the mandate of Heaven to pander to longiloquent creeps (especially the inane type). Oh, please. I'm just glad I hadn't eaten dinner right before I heard him say that. Otherwise, I'd probably still be vomiting too hard to tell you that Pres. Obama's lickspittles consider his ideals a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of lexiphanicism.

 

Pres. Obama's secret passion is to dismantle the guard rails that protect society from the grotesque elements in its midst. For shame! I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: Pres. Obama, with his craftiness and wayward plaints, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches before you know it. Pres. Obama will then use those riches to violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains. The moral of this story is that what we're seeing is a domino effect of events that started with him stating that violence and prejudice are funny. That prevarication incited his surrogates to keep us perennially behind the eight ball. Illogical gaberlunzies reacted, in turn, by putting revolting thoughts in our children's minds. The next domino to fall, not surprisingly, was a widespread increase in irreligionism, and that's the event that galvanized me to tell everyone that people tell me that Pres. Obama is morally debased and has no convictions of right or wrong. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. To wrap up, I'll just hit the key elements of this letter one last time. First, one must consider the semiotics of philistinism in order to fully understand Pres. Barak H Obama's smears. Second, it's time for Pres. Obama to grow up. And finally, I am not Pres. Obama's whipping boy.

 

Are you drunk?

 

 

No, it's a random letter generator. Go here and fill in the blanks. Can't believe you read that entire soliloquy! Click here and fill in the blanks

[billcoe]

Here's another one:

 

This letter is not a memoir. Nor is it a policy memorandum issued by the government or by a local think tank. Rather, it is an assessment of how scores of people just like you have finally decided that they've had enough of Gov. Sarah Palin's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). First, the misinformation: Sarah suggests that I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that she possesses infinite wisdom. Where the heck did she come up with that? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: Will the world ever be free of rapacious, superstitious sluggards like her? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but I used to aver that she was a short-sighted scum. However, after seeing how Sarah wants to cause (or at least contribute to) a variety of social ills, I now have an even lower opinion of her. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a central point of Sarah's belief systems is the notion that Sarah can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. Perhaps she should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think she'd find that she claims to be fighting for equality. What Sarah's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that Sarah is on some sort of thesaurus-fueled rampage. Every sentence she writes is filled with needlessly long words like "floccinaucinihilipilification" and "indistinguishability". Either Sarah is deliberately trying to confuse us or else she's secretly scheming to burn books.

 

Like much conventional wisdom, Sarah's viewpoints contain too much convention and not enough wisdom. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to embrace diversity. I say that because I once overheard her say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? She said that she is entitled to promote violence in all its forms -- physical, sexual, psychological, economical, and social. Can you believe that? At least her statement made me realize that I intend to look closely at her precepts to see what makes them so effectual at giving rise to fatuous pipsqueaks. I should expect to find -- this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify -- that Sarah periodically puts up a facade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual.

 

The spectrum of views between gangsterism and ethnocentrism is not a line but a circle at which overweening swindlers and uncompromising beguilers meet. To properly place Sarah somewhere in that spectrum, one needs to realize that the best thing about Sarah is the way that she encourages us to raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding her peremptory excuses. No, wait; Sarah doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, she discourages us from admitting that she is not just insipid. She is unbelievably, astronomically insipid.

 

If you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which Sarah may label everyone she doesn't like as a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, or some equally terrible "-ist" one of these days, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that an armed revolt against Sarah is morally justified. However, I think that it is not yet strategically justified.

 

None of Sarah's equivocations changes my mind about anything. The same might be said of sullen, hopeless present-day robber barons. I am not mistaken when I say that we wouldn't currently have a problem with Bonapartism if it weren't for Sarah. Although she created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, Sarah insists that she can solve the problem if we just grant her more power. How naïve does she think we are? Truly, if we don't do something soon, Sarah's pugnacious ballyhoos will rise like a golem with a million hands on a million throats to choke the honor out of decent, hardworking people.

 

Even Sarah's lapdogs don't care much for her political objectives; they simply wish to associate with other vapid, bleeding-heart parasites and impair the practice of democracy. Sarah's subhuman, saturnine catch-phrases serve only to illuminate her lack of good taste and decency. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism but with particular emphasis on the fact that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I suspect that there is because Sarah attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, she calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, Sarah says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does she say such things? This is an important question because if we force her into early retirement then the sea of snobbism, on which she so heavily relies, will begin to dry up.

 

It is as if we were safely on the bank of a raging river, enjoying a picnic with our friends and family, when a bunch of out-of-touch dolts came along and threw us into the river. Not only must we struggle to avoid drowning in the raging torrent of Sarah-sponsored oligarchism, but we must crawl out of the river before we can push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about the most revolting creeps I've ever seen. Although she would like us to believe that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance, she has given us neither good reason nor credible evidence to believe that. Her prevarications, on the other hand, give us good reason to believe that if it turns out that there's no way to prevent her from causing riots in the streets then I guess it'll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I'll just have to give up trying to investigate Sarah's unholy principles, ideals, and objectives and accept the fact that her terrorist organization appears to be growing in number. I definitely pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that she has never disproved anything I've ever written. Sarah does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, her holier-than-thou attitudes are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth.

 

The time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must certainly upbraid Sarah for being so lawless. The first step in that process is to realize that she is always trying to worm her way into everything. Let me recap that for you because it really is extraordinarily important: I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: It is an actuarial certainty that she will play the blame game sooner than you think. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that if she gets her way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of neopaganism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that if Sarah can't stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen.

 

Efforts to treat traditional values as if they were naive, narrow-minded crimes are not vestiges of a former era. They are the beginnings of a phenomenon which, if permitted to expand unchecked, will malign and traduce me. Oh, and one more thing. It's possible that Sarah doesn't realize this because she has been ingrained with so much of isolationism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we discuss the relationship between three converging and ever-growing factions -- vicious nitwits, materialistic, petulant stubborn-types, and jaded usurers. As it turns out, we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about her disagreeable hijinks. For starters, let's say that "racialism" is "that which makes Sarah yearn to open the floodgates of particularism."

 

Consider the issue of shiftless hedonism. Everyone agrees that it is a grave injustice for Sarah to give lunatics control of the asylum, but there are still some incompetent slimeballs out there who doubt that her helots don't want to make their own decisions but want Sarah to do their thinking for them. To them I say: Sarah has been trying for some time to convince people that her opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. Don't believe her hype! Sarah has just been offering that line as a means to snooker people of every stripe into believing that her views are all sweetness and light. Think about this: she swears that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. Clearly, she's living in a world of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats. Back in the real world, I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Sarah that one of her favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always her solutions that grant her the freedom to do the entire country a grave disservice, never the original problem. Summa summarum, Gov. Sarah Palin recognizes the potency of fear and its ability to paralyze and enslave humankind.

[billcoe]

Here's a new one. See how fast that is?

 

I am going to make this short but sweet: If one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows logically that Gov. Sarah Palin fully intends to mortgage away our future. But that's not enough, not for her. Sarah will additionally force us to tailor our fulminations just to suit her overbearing whims, which is why I feel that if we were to let her get away with forcing me to cower before the emotions and accusations of others, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice. Let us note first of all that it's easy to tell if she's lying. If her lips are moving, she's lying.

 

It's somewhat tricky to keep the faith, especially since the media in this country tend to ignore historical connections and are reluctant to analyze ideological positions or treat a fringe political group seriously. I note in passing that Sarah accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does she aver I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept her claim that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

 

But it gets worse than that. The biggest difference between me and Sarah is that Sarah wants to remake the world to suit her own bookish needs. I, on the other hand, want to sound the bugle of liberty.

 

By brainwashing her buddies with McCarthyism, Sarah makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave. Although the dialectics of power-drunk praxis will represent Heaven as Hell and, conversely, the most wretched life as paradise sometime soon, contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to carve solutions that are neither parasitic nor randy. Does anyone believe Sarah's claim that her opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality? Come on, anyone? Like I thought, Sarah keeps telling us that hanging out with wretched, saturnine opportunists is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. Are we also supposed to believe that the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to her demands? I didn't think so.

 

If you want a better opportunity to get a job, raise a family in a safe neighborhood, have a better chance at a good education, and lower the taxes on the money you earn, then I ask that you help me expose injustice and puncture prejudice. I don't see how Sarah can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, if we don't prevent the Sarah-induced catastrophe I foresee and save our nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace right now, then Sarah's witticisms will soon start to metastasize until they provide the pretext for police-state measures. If you observe some repetition in my statements, it is because such repetition is needed for clarity and emphasis as I disentangle people from the snares set by Sarah and her cohorts. The point at which you discover that her allegations represent a new nutty ethos that the most discourteous savages I've ever seen will eventually use to promote mediocrity over merit is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that if we briefly prescind from the main point of this letter we can focus on how if I said that Sarah values our perspectives, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being totally honest if I said that I feel that she has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. Sarah obviously has none or she wouldn't deflect attention from her unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen.

 

Efforts to borrow money and spend it on programs that promote Bonapartism's traits as normative values to be embraced are not vestiges of a former era. They are the beginnings of a phenomenon which, if permitted to expand unchecked, will destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study. It's possible that Sarah doesn't realize this because she has been ingrained with so much of antipluralism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change.

 

I have just one word for Sarah: theoanthropomorphism. She has a strategy. Her strategy is to canonize anal-retentive, uncompromising protestors as nomological emblems of propriety. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Sarah. She has become so morally and ideologically degraded, so acclimated to incendiarism and Pyrrhonism, that she wants to attack the fabric of this nation. Sarah vehemently denies that, of course. But she obviously would because some day, in the far, far future, she will realize that she leaves me no choice but to have to fight with one hand tied behind my back. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how Sarah is like a stray pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Sarah and a pigeon is that Sarah intends to parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire. That's why anyone who hasn't been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that particularism is both a belief system and a material, institutional reality. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time Sarah tried to make bigotry respectable.

 

We must keep our eyes on the prize, but given the way things are these days we must remember that one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Sarah, however, is more likely to crush national and spiritual values out of existence and substitute the judgmental and treacherous machinery of resistentialism. She has completely stepped off the deep end. This is the flaw in her propositions. She doesn't understand that she would love to see college campuses morph into small, ivy-covered North Koreas in which the student or faculty member who dares to improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come quickly finds himself in a heap of legal trouble. End of story. Actually, I should add that she argues that she answers to no one. To maintain this thesis, Sarah naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which she does by the desperate expedient of claiming that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all absolutely justified.

 

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: Recidivism is an exclusive, rather than an inclusive, societal force. Yes, I could add that much of her success is due to the rest of us bending over backwards to assist her and to overlook her failings, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that Sarah is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks.

 

If Sarah continues to prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror, I will be obliged to do something about her. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations. Although I respect her right to free speech just as I respect it for dim-witted, horny prigs, muddleheaded smut peddlers, and the worst sorts of superstitious slaves to fashion there are, there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Sarah finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that she try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that Sarah's historical record of stolid Ponzi schemes is clearer than the muddled pronouncements of her admirers. And here, I assert, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in Sarah's tirades. And that, in my view, is our real problem.

[billcoe]

I think it adds a lot to spray.

[billcoe]

Especially since most people here just spray, and don't bother really reading what others have written. It's great that way, you can fit right in.

[billcoe]

Here's one for Raindawg:

 

 

 

I'm not going to sit here and brainlessly point out Dr. Don Ryan's flaws -- we all know he has them -- but I am going to say a little about how there is a tortured quality to Don's reasoning, a careful avoidance of obvious conclusions, and a painstaking circumnavigation of embarrassing facts. One of the first facts we should face is that Don believes that the sun rises just for him. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself, but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Don and his mentally deficient flunkies. Contrary to the Rousseauian ideal of the transparency of the general will to itself, he is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how empty-headed Don is. You can't do it. Not only that, but he loves getting up in front of people and telling them that demented, hideous creeps are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. He then boasts about how he'll create a new cottage industry around his crass form of metagrobolism in the immediate years ahead. It's all part of the media spectacle that is Don Ryan. Of course, he soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, I have frequently criticized Don's unspoken plan to consign most of us to the role of his servants or slaves. He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of antidisestablishmentarianism, academicism, child molestation, and halitosis. Don hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that one of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that this is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact.

 

Will what I call batty hopeless-types ever challenge the present and enrich the future? Don't bet on it. This is a free country, and I allege we ought to keep it that way. The important point here is not that Don has deported himself as an enemy of peace and harmony. The vital matter is that no one likes being attacked by fatuous, scurrilous gadflies. Even worse, Don exploits our fear of those attacks -- which he claims will evolve before you know it into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to wiretap all of our telephones and computers. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that even Don's peons are afraid that Don will burn books some day. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again and it is further evidence that I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why Don has bid adieu to objectivity. My peers avouch that in the near future, Don will order his chums to rob from the rich but -- unlike Robin Hood -- give to superstitious dweebs. While this is unmistakably true, I profess we must add that I have to wonder where Don got the idea that it is my view that anyone who dares to free people from the spell of elitism that he has cast over them can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is.

 

When one examines the ramifications of letting Don ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of his infantile apothegms. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) Guess what? He believes that his faith in hooliganism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations. Unfortunately, as long as he believes such absurdities, he will continue to commit atrocities. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but Dr. Don Ryan has no evidence or examples to back up his point.

[Bug]

Well it won't be worth reading your posts from now on.

 

L

[akhalteke]

it is very interesting that the mccain people have been so quick to talk about palin in such a negative way. clearly they don't want her to be in a position of prominence in the party. to some extent this might just be the usual finger-pointing (i.e., "she's the reason we lost"), but somehow it feels like there is more to it than that. there seems to be a concerted effort to marginalize her.

 

as for billcoe's opus above, i'm going to have to wait for it to be translated into english. an abridged form would be nice, too.

 

This is way too conspiratorial. Look, McCain's camp and Palin's camp hated each other. They came from different worlds. Now McCain's aides, probably at the bottom of the ranks, are spilling the beans because they hate the bitch. This isn't the RNC we're talking about; this is a bunch of 20 and 30 somethings who are out for a bit of revenge. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the direction the GOP is headed (other than, of course, helping to royally fuck up one of the worst campaigns in recent history).

 

Having said that, I do agree with Doug that Palin hasn't much of a future in national politics, although a senatorial slot is probably within her reach. Washington just doesn't put up with 'small town' very well.

 

Precicely

[billcoe]

Well it won't be worth reading your posts from now on.

 

L

 

When did you start?

[Bug]

Did somebody say something?

 

Never mind.

Probably just more whimpering from the far right.

 

 

 

[G-spotter]

I had that pegged for random text generator from the second sentence Those things are so 2005.

[mkporwit]

You know, he did spell that out in the subject of his post...

[catbirdseat]

Tvash. Is this your original prose? You nailed it.

The GOP's been unraveling for years. Unlike the Democrats, the GOP no longer has a set of core values that bind the party. They've systematically abandoned them; fiscal responsibility, free market principles, a distaste for foreign adventures, libertarian Constitutional principles, the list goes on. There's nothing left.

 

The Rove philosophy is partly to blame. His idea came from his career as a junk mailer; find pockets of support that rally around a single issue and loosely stitch these pockets together into a voting coalition. Catholics. Evangelicals. Gun freaks. And first, and foremost: Anti-liberals. The problem was there was no center, no core set of shared values, and so real bond between these disparate groups. There was no blond haired, blue eyed Germanness at the heart of this thousand year Reich. Mostly, the True Believers were voting against, not for, something. It was a coalition of Fear and Hate. Fortunately for the rest of us, they were voting against an basic progress and an inevitable future; it was a campaign for which there could never be a final victory.

 

Well, the GOP had it's day in the sun and got to try out all it's Big Ideas, every one of which was founded on mythical belief unfettered by the confines of history or reality. And, surprise, surprise, every single one of them was not just a failure, but a abject global disaster.

 

Experiments have long proven that rats in an electrified cage will turn on each other. The GOP will become more rabid, extreme, and, as such, will continue to shrink and be left behind by an increasingly beaten and thus more reasonable nation. The GOP is suffering an unsurprising brain drain right now; who wants to belong the the Royal Fuck Up Club? Someday they may reconstitute a core set of values that can flourish in the actual world we live in, but I wouldn't bet on it any time soon. After all, it was the GOP's moderates that got beat in Congress this time around; the Junkyarddogs all kept their seats.

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes. If it wasn't I'd have attributed it to the author.

[wayne]

Tvash is the smack! Our own political guru! RUN FOR AN OFFICE!

[korup]

Upon further reflection, I smell a rat. YES, she is an IDIOT, and I am in no way repudiating that. But, can any adult really be that dense? Unlikely. FOX NEWS of all outlets breaks a story that suddenly makes all of McCain's insanity a thing of the past, and a new clean slate awaits, conveniently right after a series of crushing defeats? Waaaay too convenient. A disposable outsider as a convenient scapegoat to explain away a political catastrophe? Yup.

[Doug]

I think that disposable outsider was a big part of the political catastrophe.

[pc313]

I cant wait for the movie to be made!!

[STP]

Ok, F it.

 

Here's the craziest tinhat conspiracy: The ensuing turmoil yet to come will result in a massive world depopulation that is required for the transition to a new system of economic sustainablility.

 

Good day.

[tvashtarkatena]

Tvash is the smack! Our own political guru! RUN FOR AN OFFICE!

 

I'm like a skinny, er, not quite so fat Rove for the Left!

 

Unfortunately, 2 minutes of background check would render me unelectable.