Feb 13, 2008

Friends, Liberals, Countrymen

Followers of both sides of the the Democratic Civil War:

Whether you like Clinton or Obama- (or Kucinich, Edwards, Richardson, Gravel for that matter)

This is a public service reminder -

This IS our REAL (the really real) Enemy:

Try to keep this in mind, while you pimp (oops did I say pimp?) your favorite candidate

This is how Republican minds work:

This is their idea of a great leader:

No.10 Bad President

Out of Vietraq!

They support these troops:


Not These troops...

R.I.P. Tillman

They believe that Sept.11 is an accessory, not an atrocity

Inside job

Their idea of "fair and balanced" is waaaayyyy off

Anal Rape Hannity

Even their women don't want women to be able to vote

Trannies can't procreate

And here's the Republican platform. They support a whole lot of this:
Republican fascism
Never Ending War
Class War
Ancient Fundamentalist Dogma
Hypocritical Sex criminals

So whoever you vote for in 2008, just make sure it's not THIS Guy:
Unleash the Douchebags of War

And things will be okay. Or at least you won't be entertaining hopes for the Rapture or fears of the Apocalypse on a daily basis...

Remember, back in 2000, some liberals were saying that Gore was as bad as Bush. I think, well I certainly HOPE, that we have learned our lesson. They may not be Progressive messiahs, but Obama or Clinton are light years ahead of the competition.

UPDATE: Dcup gave me some link love at American Street - Give the site a visit-
UPDATE2: Hi to all my friends visiting from C&L and Mike's Blog Round up!


navyswan said...

Is it just me or does the woman in the video come off as someone who is mentally retarded and being coached by someone?

Also, I would never vote for McCain. Although, I agree that the two choices we have not real choices for real change, I cannot see how someone can use that reasoning to vote for someone that they know for sure is Bush II. Like I have said elsewhere, I may vote for one of the dems, but I will not endorse them.

Bob Harrison said...

Well said.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant. I linked it at American Street.

Faded said...

Swan- Yes, and Yes. Are you saying you haven't noticed the two defining traits of Republicanism before?

Bob and Dcup, glad you liked it- had to shake off my post-fisa funk

Angry Ballerina said...

Fade, I want whatever you're smoking, STAT.

C.J. said...

AMEN, brother!

C.J. said...

Finally have time to watch that IDIOTIC excuse for a woman's video.


Anonymous said...

She's a mannn babbbby!!!

Batocchio said...

Well done, Fade!

Elmo said...

Good God! You know we're in trouble when Fade is the only adult in the room! Just kidding, great post...

Faded said...

LMAO at Elmo... NO SHIT, The sooner Progressives can get their shit together, the sooner I can go back to being my normal ranting madman self.


Anonymous said...

Bravo...well said! Matters not at this point which Democrat wins...as long as the Democrat wins! I'll stand by either one.

Anonymous said...

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) - About Louis Kestenbaum - A teenage girl has filed a $50 million lawsuit against a New York billionaire, saying he sexually abused her when she was 14.

Louis Kestenbaum"s attorney says the allegations are false and motivated by money. Kestenbaum is also the CEO of Fortis properties and the ODA a goverment funded organisation in the williamsburg section of Brooklyn NY

The girl, now 17, claims Louis Kestenbaum invited her to his Florida mansion in 2005 to perform a massage for $300. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, claims he demanded she remove her clothes, then sexually assaulted her.

The girl, her father and stepmother are seeking more than $50 million.

JOEL KESTENBAUM a son of Louis Kestenbaum said " The family is in shock " but had no comments when asked.

Unconventional Conventionist said...

RIght on Fade!

SadButTrue said...

About that video - I frickin' love it when the Republicans refer to themselves as the Party of Lincoln, because then I get to throw this quote at them:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor,
and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed.
Labor is superior to capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration.
" -- Abraham Lincoln

It shuts 'em up every time.

Faded said...

SBT= that's the part where they really regress back into their Confederate Republican phase, muttering under their breaths-

"Well, Fuck Lincoln anyway, I was just using him cause that's all we've ever had....sumbitch took our slaves...muttermutter"

Tesla_Girl said...

Ummmm...sorry. I'm going to be very unpopular here but I'll say it --

There's no way in hell that I'd vote for Obama if he gets the Dems nomination -- the guy has said that he would have no problem unilaterally attacking Pakistan! If that doesn't make people creeped out I don't know what would.

We've been through seven years of "cowboy" diplomacy already -- don't you all think the world needs a break from all of this imperialistic bullcrap.

Arthur Silber say it all on his blog. I would greatly recommend checking out the page address below annd reading this fine piece -- NO, The DEMS ARE NOT BETTER THAN REPUGS...At least not the ass-clown Obama. The Dems real alternative for change was Kucinich and they effectively marginalized the only Dem worth voting for.


Faded said...

For Arthur Silber I refer you to this post, made earlier this week:


If you don't vote for Obama if he's the nominee, you might as well be voting for McCain.

Mirth are you out there on this one? Would love to know your take...

Tesla_Girl said...

Fade --

I read the article you recommended. It was a critique on Silber's attitude. It had nothing to do with the article I recommended -- I'm not critiquing Silber, nor am I endorsing him. I AM endorsing the message of the article I referred to in my earlier post.

Apparently you didn't even bother reading it -- instead you just made a judgment based on the author's name.

Yes, indeed. Not voting for Obama is like voting for McCain -- conversely voting for Obama is just as well as voting for McCain. They're both arrogant international interventionists. And I am sick of that attitude from American politicians -- aren't you?

Again, read that article -- you'll see where I'm coming from.

Faded said...

Euro=sorry, I read Silber's posts as he puts them up, and I have probably read it, but I didn't re-read it today, kinda multi-tasking, but I'll give it another read...

I was an Edwards man, myself. But like I say at the bottom of this post- It was easy to say Gore was exactly like Bush in 2000. It's easy to Equate Obama and Clinton with McCain. I have eviscerated Obama myself over the "all options are pn the table" quote. That said, Obama is NOT McCain. And would not be making the same moves that a man who ENDORSES torture (well, as of yesterday) does...

Faded said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faded said...

sunofa- It keeps doubleposting my comments... frickin frackin

Tesla_Girl said...

Fade --

No prob about the missed article -- I just thought it was an excellent piece that articulates my thinking.

You know about this McCain and torture comment -- if Obama is so hot on "actionable intelligence" don't be so sure that he wouldn't allow torture under the guise of "imminent threat" excuses.

The think about Obama is that no one really knows what this guy is capable of -- no one really knows this guy at all, except those who have groomed him for this moment.

That's why I would actually prefer Clinton -- she's at least predictable. With Obama I don't know what we're going to get. Either way, I have no happy feelings about the next four years.

Suzi Riot said...

Excellent as usual.

Carl said...

Fade, I know you and I disagree on whom the Dems should run, but Eurokin has a point:

Barack = War In Iraq after all?

Faded said...

Well, I guess its up to the delegates, now... Either way, My vote is for the anti-Republican candidate, as such, it will go to Hillary or Obama. I have my reservations, but that's that.

The Poor Blogger said...

Responding to several of these posts:

First, I would never vote for McCain. But I would also never vote for Clinton OR Obama. All of them are equally horrid choices for President in their own ways. Now that I've got that out of the way:

Second, Abraham Lincoln is not someone to quote about anything. He was a racist. He did not free the slaves. He supported oppressive laws for free blacks in Illinois and Fugutive Slave Laws. He wanted to deport black people, all black people, back to Africa. And his Emancipation Proclamation was specifically designed so that it ONLY freed slaves in the Confederate States, not in Union States.

And my source? A new book by Lerone Bennet Jr. onetime editor of "Ebony" magazine:
- http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/30/tl.00.html
- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_25_16/ai_63323546

Regarding Eurokin's assertion that he is sick of American presidents constantly playing up the idea that we are the leaders of the free world, I entirely agree. I don't know that what makes us think we have the right, or that anyone wants us, to do that.

Regarding Fade's assertion that not voting for Obama is like voting for McCain, that's a toughie. I'll be voting for Ron Paul. This means that, probably, my vote will be "wasted." But I cannot, in good conscience, vote for anyone else. Voting for someone because I am afraid the other person will win is exactly what Obama says he doesn't want, voting out of fear. It is the fear of the other party that has kept us in a two party system. And this two party system has ended up being a one party system. Look closely, and you'll find little difference between Obama, Clinton and McCain.

So I vote Libertarian. And, in the absence of a Libertarian candidate, I vote for what I call the "Bollox Party." That means, since there's barely a separation of powers any more, I vote for separation of parties. If Obama is president, I'll vote for the House to be Republican and the Senate to be split 50/50. Then, we can have what the Founding Fathers intended, a Federal government that can barely function or get anything accomplished. Then, they can't screw things up too bad.

How did Bush accomplish all the crap he accomplished? 9/11. Without the horrific unity that event created, we wouldn't be in Iraq, we wouldn't have the "Patriot Act," and about ten other things that buffoon accomplished. So, until we have candidates who actually believe in liberty (that is, Libertarians), be like me and vote for the "Bollox Party." :-)

Finally, I rewrote the words to Bob Dylan's classic and thought you all might enjoy them:

Come gather 'round, voters, from East coast to West
Participate in this historic contest
By choosing which one of us is the best
If you think this country's worth saving
The melanin man or the babe with the breasts
For the times they are a-changing

Come newsmen and pundits all flapping your lips
And spinning the facts according to scripts
This moment is rare as a solar eclipse
Who knows what bull you'll be claiming
Or when you will cut to "Celebrity Strips"
Still, the times they are a changing!

Come senators, congressmen, don't be to scared
Have you the American people prepared
With women or black men to have power shared
Across race and gender it's ranging
(Ignore that they're both just the same when compared)
For the times they are a changing!

Come mothers and fathers, who head to the polls
And can't tell the difference 'tween his and her goals
To take from the rich, put the poor on the doles
Retirement rapidly aging
As over the hump the middle class rolls
For the times they are a changing!

Come, Clinton, Obama, both spending your dough
As if there was going to be no tomorrow
Espousing the benefits you will bestow
(Think how many that could be feeding)
And telling us all (as if we don't know)
That the times they are a-changing!

This is the point of the song I now sing
You both talk of change more than the I Ching
And all of the good things you promise to bring
We're not going to hold all our breathing
Change usually brings about the same things
So who cares that times are a-changing!


(Who apologizes for the long post and thanks Fade for his kind comments on the "Ben Franklin Effect" post.)

Faded said...

No apologies necessary, kester. I don't know if Abraham was a racist or not. I expect he, like most of us, was. I don't know everyone, but I can only speak for the people I do know, and whatever color they are, they generally have some racist baggage that has been imparted to them. And who knows, some sort of inherent racism may actually be built into our DNA, a tribal defensive mechanism that allowed those of like appearance to band together more easily and empathize easier. I don't know. My mixed heritage keeps me from believing that one side or the other is somehow better than the other. But I look white enough to have been included in the many racist comments and actions of my fellow white men to know there are very very few of us who can openly refute racism honestly to this day, much less 120 years ago. What makes all this ludicrous (sp?) is that you pick Ron Paul as your champion, of all people, who has some very real racist sentiment in his writings, most especially his newsletter of the past.Libertarians are like the uber darwinists of Republicans. They don't want any social programs wasted on "the weak" (those born into poor families). That's all well and good, I guess. The harsh truth about Racism and Sexism is that they work. Thats why White males run most everything of importance. Our racism and sexism and long time policy of putting ourselves before others, dividing and conquering, and forcing others to assimilate has worked well. So maybe Ron Paul is a good choice for President.

Of a country that becomes the opposite of Utopia, that is.

I like Ron Paul's stance on several things, but Libertarianism is Republicanism on steroids, and that would be the worst possible thing for our country right now.

And, I don't have time to rewrite lyrics to songs right now, (taking my daughters to a local pancake festival this morning) but I will give you this Haiku in response to your reworked Dylan:

The White man rampant
on fields of women and blacks
any change - I'll take...

The Poor Blogger said...

The problem is that I'm really worse than a Libertarian. I'm an anarchist. Civilization is naught but legalized violence ... the Mafia of the masses. I like Libertarians only because they get closer to no government than anyone else.

As for Ron Paul, my impression is less that he thinks certain groups are unworthy of government assistance, and more that all government assistance is unethical. I happen to agree. In the same way that I cannot stomach the religious right trying to prevent same-sex marriage (which they see as immoral), I also cannot bear the left trying to prevent people from being racist (which they see as immoral).

I'm not equating racism and same-sex marriage, but the people in power attempting to legislate the thoughts and actions of others.

Government programs are the same way. I give of my on income to programs which assist the poor and needy. But if I were an asshole who didn't think the poor and needy deserved my money, then the government should just let me be that asshole.

Bottom line: even if I agreed with every policy and position of a candidate, I would balk at that candidate using the Federal government as a platform to make those policies and positions law.

Regarding your Haiku, I was raised Southern Baptist (flag-waving, Republican voting, etc.) When I started learning about American History, I became ashamed of being a white man. The people I once lauded were largely shitheads (like Lincoln, and most of the founding fathers).

Then, I started learning about the history of mankind from the beginning to now. What I learned was that the White Man were so terrible, not because they were white, but because they were in power. That is, because they were human. Across the globe, opression reigns, from the Indian caste system to Chinese Confucian Orthodoxy to yearly wars waged by the Spartans on their slave population to Mayan and Aztec human sacrifice to African tribes selling rival tribesmen to slave traders.

And I came to this conclusion. The world will not be better when women are in power. And the world will not be better when minorities are in power. The world will only be better when THERE IS NO POWER! The change for which you hope will only be from tyranny to tyranny.

Have fun at the pancake festival!

Tesla_Girl said...

Hi Fade!

I wanted to add my two cents in on your comment regarding racism -- and it is related to The Poor Blogger's comment as well.

The Poor Blogger makes some very astute observations regarding this issue. There is a very real connection between what is perceived as "class" "racism" "oppression" and "power." This has been evident in every civilization that ever recorded its history.

What makes the phenomenon unusual in today's American society is that the accusation of "racism" is almost always directed at the white population. As if this is exclusive to them alone.

A good example is a post that I viewed at Huffington Post. The man who wrote the article assembled some polling data and attempted to show that while, at that moment, the gender gap was a factor in voter's choice between Obama and Clinton, race was the greater factor between the two. When he posted the statistics he referred to the white vote for Clinton by those who admitted race as a factor in their decision as the "racist" vote. On the other hand, he described those who admitted race as a factor for choosing Obama as "pro-black" votes. The juxtaposition was glaring and when I commented upon this my message was quickly removed. One is left to wonder why that is.

I do not have a problem with accepting the fact that left to their own devices, racial groups would tend to want to congregate amongst themselves. To me that seems as natural as anything else in nature -- hyenas don't hang with wolves and lions don't congregate with tigers, bees don't party with flies and mice don't live with rats.

With that said, I believe that we, as human beings, have the capacity to appreciate the various aspects of diverse cultures which means that we are capable of sharing space.

What creates racial animosity today is that the element of choice does not exist. Individuals from all races in the U.S. who feel more comfortable within their own cultures feel as though integration among races is being forced upon them. Normally simple good people, who would otherwise never feel hostility towards others, become offended when they are told that there is something morally wrong with them because they prefer the cultures of their parents and grandparents over that which they find uncomfortable or alien.

America has become the grand paradox. On the one hand, the people are told that they are to celebrate "diversity," then, on the other hand, they are told that we are all the same -- equal.

The thing is, while there is a realistic goal of "all being equal in the eyes of the law," the goal of human equality is greatly unachievable for this simple reason:

No two people are equal.

Not in the quality of mind. Not in the quality of physical appearance. Not in any race. Not in any way shape or form. Equality of people outside of the law is not possible. If a day comes when this is so, it will only be when human beings are reduced to automatons and assembly line reproductions - hence losing their humanity.

Human equality is a tragically sad and cruel promise to those who hunger for that which they cannot possess. If one is born with the tools of success like above average intelligence, drive, and unshakable will power, he or she is capable of great things. If one is not, if he or she is of average or less than average intelligence, has difficulty with motivation, and is easily manipulated, nothing is more frustrating than the thought that others have achieved such lofty goals and they have not. Rather than realizing that not all men and women are capable of the same things, they are told that we are all "equal." This where animosity and jealousy are bred.

In the modern history of the U.S. since the civil rights movement that started in the late 50's, there have been racial separatist movements in both the black and white populations. Rather than allowing these groups the dignity and choice to be with their own people, the government chose to label them as "racist extremists." The government, and groups who worked with them, decided that these groups were dangerous to the social engineering plans that would have to be put into place if they were to control the herd. These aforementioned groups felt that there was no other choice but to take a militant stand against the government and the society that sought to steal away their identity. Their hostility lingers today in what is now the ultimate thought crime - "racism."

What I find most oddly interesting is that while it is completely socially acceptable for racial groups like Arab, Asian, non-European Latino, East Indian, and Jewish, to prefer the company of their own respective groups, it is seen as dangerous and morally reprehensible for blacks and whites to prefer the same -- whites more so than blacks, but both groups sense the hostility to some degree.

When I was in Kenya a few years back, a had the great opportunity to be able to spend a few days with the Masai tribe. To this day they are rather nomadic. They know that there is a big luxurious technological world away from their lands and they, for the most part, don't want or need it. The gentleman who acted as translator related a question to me that a young woman asked. "Are you missing being with your people?" "Which people?" I asked. "White people." I smiled and said, "Not just yet, I haven't been away from my family long enough." Then I asked her, "Would you miss your people if you left them for a while?" She answered wide eyed, "I would die!"

Neither of us felt the other was "racist" for wanting to be with our tribal people. I wish that everyone could appreciate that feeling. Sadly, in the U.S., that is unacceptable for some.

This long post is over -- thanks for the time. Hope it shed some light.

The Poor Blogger said...

Quick note: Eurokin reminded me of something which I forgot to mention in my reply to Fade. I do agree that preference for one's own race or kin is probably genetic. It is natural for the herd to stick together and close ranks against outsiders, whether that be lions against an unknown lion, or gazelles against a lion.

Of course, just because it is genetically encoded don't make it right, ya'll. So we all have prejudice. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Being wary of strangers is something we teach kids from an early age. The problem, I suppose, is:
A) When that judgment is based solely on race or
B) When that judgment cannot be overturned given new information because of race.

That is, if I am wary of a person of a different race whom I do not know because I do not know them, I suppose that is OK. When I get to know the person, inasmuch as I continue to be wary of them only based on race, I am racist.

I will also add that the only person who can truly be non-prejudiced is the one who is willing to die. And I have much respect for such a person. If I get on a plane, and there are several young men of Arab descent, and I feel absolutely no fear from them (even though there might be a higher probability they are terrorists than the octagenarian WASP couple in the Hawaiian shirts), it might be foolish, but it is more moral than Jack Bauer, who would be ready to gouge their eyes out to make sure they aren't packing.

There's also the consideration of action vs. feeling. I may FEEL racist inclinations toward a certain group, but if I recognize these feelings and do not act on them, am I still a racist?

Deep questions!

Faded said...

Yes, some complex issues to face - and I think the best way to face them is with a wide open mind. I'm just now beginning to read through Guns, germs, and steel... Certainly the recurring theme of those who end up in "power" is that the most murderous groups tend to win out over the peaceful types every time. Can we, as a more fully empathetic humanity, embracing all the different tribes as our extended family- get past the dark urges of our primitive DNA? Is it even desirable to do so- given that the more humans there are, the more we seem to raze the planet? Deep questions, indeed. I don't believe I know the answers, but I sure appreciate the thoughtful input. The best way to learn (for me anyway) is by arguing. And losing those arguments at times.

Faded said...

And Kester= you? an anarchist? didnt see that coming...

Tesla_Girl said...

Fade --

I don't believe that the "dark urges" you speak of are necessarily in our DNA. Darwin's theory of evolution describes a struggle for survival. This is shared amongst nearly every man, woman, and child. It explains why an otherwise good kid would resort to selling drugs, joining a violent gang, or even selling his or her physical self.

DNA passes on physical attributes. And while it is true that through time it also passes on physical sickness like alcoholism and drug abuse, it is also true that within most individuals there is an intangible and, to this day, mysterious element best described as "will" or more philosophically, "spirit." This element is even dealt with in courts of law when the accused is allowed the defense of "insanity" whereby a conscious level of guilt is determined by the ability to determine "right" from "wrong."

Individuals who choose to use "power" for murderous gain are almost always conscious of their crimes. They are so aware of their guilt that they would resort to any measure to silence those who might expose that guilt in any effective way. The reason why they "tend to win out over the peaceful types every time" is because the "peaceful types" tend towards an idealism contrary to the natural order.

This is hard to accept for most people whose innate ability to survive has been stunted by religions such as Christianity that teach the followers to "turn the other cheek," but we live on a beautiful, yet extremely violent planet by nature. Those who dominate know that nature's seemingly unshakable rule is that "only the strong survive, only the weak will die."

While I almost always abhor the evil done by these murderous and dominating groups, I also find myself grudgingly admiring their indomitable will. They understand the nature of this planet and are not prone to surrender their desire for power and dominance based on some abstract promise in an afterlife.

DNA is never "primitive." With each generation it evolves and mutates for future generational survival. Those in power know this and they ruthlessly fight to secure their own -- that is why they tend to win every time.

"Peaceful types" inspire people to believe in lofty dreams like "peace on Earth." Unfortunately, the warring types know that for that to happen they would have to be destroyed -- and that's not something the "peaceful types" are capable of doing by definition.

And so the wheel turns.

The Poor Blogger said...


Re: "Guns, germs, and steel," I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting. Post your thoughts on it.

Re: "humans razing the planet," I tend to think of us a little less dismally, or at least no worse than other life-forms. All plants and animals are doing the same thing, trying to reproduce. The only problem with humans is that we are exceptionally good at it. We have no predators of which we need be concerned except ourselves (and the occasional plague).

I see it like this: if there is no moral code aside from the one identified by Darwin, the one all other organisms on this planet live by, then the only "bad" thing we're doing is potentially shooting ourselves in the foot by using up limited resources.

However, if there is a moral code we are violating (and what would that code be, or the source of it?), then we again are separated from other animals and plants by the very existence of that code.

Re: Anarchy, I didn't see it coming either. It happened gradually, and is still coming into focus. Initially, I became enchanted with people like Jefferson and Thoreau. Thoreau led me to Leo Tolstoy who wrote "The Kingdom of God Is Within You," a basic "Christian" anarchistic text. But Thoreau and Tolstoy and Jefferson were not Christians (meaning they did not believe in the divinity of Christ, birth, resurrection, all that stuff.)

What I couldn't understand was why all the Christians, aside from early Quakers, were so pro-government and why all the anarchists were so anti-Christian. Was the Bible really so pro-government?

Although a book called "Christian Anarchy" by Jaques Eller really helped, I first came to my conclusion based on the prophecy of the Statue in Daniel. Each level of the statue that Nebuchadnezzar saw represented a different empire (Chaldean, Persian, Greek, Roman, etc.) But a stone "cut without hands" (Christ and the Church or the Body of Christ) destroys the statue and takes its place.

That did it for me. There is no government for me, or for any Christian. There is only the Church. And, looking at history, it is only when the Church gets in bed with the State that the Church starts doing bad things. (By the way, "State" and "Statue" come from the same Latin root.)

The Church is the only Kingdom, but that Kingdom must act in the same way that God has for centuries, and Christ did on earth. Never with power, never with force, never with guns and swords and uniforms. Not even with laws, except this one, "Love your neighbor." And we don't compel others to love their neighbors ... we do it. This Kindom has borders which cover the earth and does not rule with the crown of a king, but with the collar of a slave. We rule like Christ did, by laying down our lives, not by the taking of others.

Sadly, the Church has consistently missed this vision and this call throughout history, using the more expedient (read "demonic") way of force.

So, yes, I'm an anarchist. But only because I believe it is my job to rule the world by being a slave to everyone in it. That is, I'm such a totalitarian despot, I come 'round the other side as a slave.

Eurokin: your post was well said. And I entirely agree (I think). What Christians don't understand, and what Christ commanded, was that we be "in the world, but not of it." Any time a Christian is willing to follow the ways of the world as you describe it, even to achieve a "good" end, we have already lost. It's one of the many reasons why Bush, with all his "Crusader" talk, makes me nauseous. And it's one of the reasons why Clinton and Obama, so willing to force people to be "good," make me equally nauseous.