Friday, June 1, 2012

Don't Be Hopin'

Well, the latest jobs report has unemployment up to 8.2 per cent, which isn't good news for the country or a president seeking re-election.  True, it's hardly the disaster that's being painted in the news.  "The news" is sort of like a person who has absolutely no perspective, and a very short attention span to top off the lack of perspective. 

But enough damn-liberal complaining.  There's no doubt that "O'Bummer" has failed.  It's all his fault, whatever it is, because as we all know, presidents are always directly to blame for whatever happens – gas prices, economic swings, that lamentably visible door ding you discovered recently on your car, you name it.  We tried the hopey-changey thing, we really did, but now it's time to go back to what works: violence-inducing fear, ignorance that would put a medieval peasant to shame, implacable contempt leveled against anyone who isn't sufficiently rich and white, and callous, self-congratulatory indifference to the plight of the poor and the struggling working class.  Republicans 2012!

16 comments:

  1. The two party duopoly. Mutually supportive in their endeavors to maintain the status quo, each in their own particularly destructive way. The Patriot Act, senseless wars (repubs) and the continuation of policies by Obama (dems).

    I know I'll be supporting Gary Johnson and the Libertarian ticket. The republicans and democrats just don't cut it. Anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, yes, yes! Hurray for the two Ns - nationalism plus narcissism! A vote for the GOP will return us to our roots - as a bunch of savages long before we were forced to endure the oppressions of civilization.

    Grunt, chest-thump, and Donald Trump!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The Donald" could't care about truth only facts that benefit him and his sense of importance! As long as he keeps making ridiculous statements he keeps his name in the news!! That is all he interested in. He is the perfect example of how to oppress and repress our civilization.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really thought you guys were okay with diverse views. Given my most recent comment on this thread was not published I'm not so sure. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My confidence has been restored. As to "the Donald", couldm't agree more.

      Delete
  5. Any person who, after what has happened in this country the last couple of decades, can't see the difference between Republicans and Democrats is a willfully blind fool. And I mean you, Mr. "Rational Nation."

    Sure, I'm angry at Obama for the way he's handled Guantanamo, the drones, executive assassination and other similar issues. I believe he has failed to act with sufficient force on lots of other issues, like a single payer health care system, and he has collaborated far too long in the ludicrous notion that the Republican party is in any way trying to make this country a better place.

    But remember, with Al Gore as President we would have had no Iraq aggression, no torture, no free tax cuts for the rich, no gigantic deficit. Obama may not be any better than Gore, and maybe he's even not as good as Gore would have been, but he's a hell of a lot better than Bush was, or than McCain would have been, and he's light years ahead of Romney. Unfortunately, we only get one vote each, and a vote for some libertarian jackass is a vote for Romney; i.e. a vote to turn this country once and for all into a third world oligarchic dictatorship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I respect your opinion, and agree with a portion of your assessment.

      However calling Gary Johnson a jackass with out pointing to the rationale for your accusation is what?

      Anyway, there are those who simply do not buy the party line(s), and you just called one a willfully blind fool.

      Delete
  6. Green Eagle,

    I'd say that's exactly what the Republican Party is after: "a third world oligarchic dictatorship," in effect if not in name. It isn't even in the true best interests of the wealthy, who would probably have to spend lots of money and time worrying about their own safety the way rich folk do in countries that have no central government. Got money? Great! That will come in handy for the armored car you'll need once we get rid of just about all government waste (like a reasonably uncorrupted police force, efficient fire departments, schools that don't charge individual parents $40,000 per year for tuition, and all that useless totalitarian nonsense), along with several machine-gun wielding guards in front of the house so the kiddies don't get kidnapped by desperate crimos for a ransom. La vita รจ bella, vero?

    Moreover, that's also what a libertarian scheme of things would probably result in, in spite of the good intentions of some who hold that view. It is naive to suppose that if you allow capitalism free reign, the result would be anything like social harmony consistent with freedom. That kind of thinking ignores -- willfully or otherwise -- over a century and a half of historical experience.

    The difference, I think, is that such a state of affairs as I outlined would actually make a fair number Republicans HAPPY, just so long as they're on the winning end. All you need to do is review the tapes of some of those audiences at the GOP debates from earlier this year. In my view, they're a pack of cruel, feckless, reckless dastards, and they won't be happy until they elect someone as low as they are to the highest office in the land. Romney seems to know better, but it doesn't stop him from shamelessly pandering to the grimacing, perpetually enraged idiots who have taken over the party he now leads.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Green Eagle, my friend ...

    A cephalopod always looks for the silver lining above the dark cloud. In this case, RN's vote for Gary Johnson is NOT a vote for Rmoney. Otherwise, I agree with everything you and the giant reptile say.

    And please accept my thanks for all mythological creatures above and below waves that inhabit this realm: Flying birds that drop chalk trails, ink-the-aquarium types, and foot-stomping, stegasaurus-eating Saurischeans. Our bulwark against the bullshit of our times.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now RN gets it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ...implacable contempt leveled against anyone who isn't sufficiently rich and white, and callous, self-congratulatory indifference to the plight of the poor and the struggling working class.

    I think you may have tapped into the prevailing republican point-of-view fairly accurately if this shameless promotion in this week's once valuable La Jolla Light is any indication:

    Should Mitt Romney be elected the 45th U.S. president — and his beachfront home on Dunemere Drive become a de facto “White House West” — La Jollans would undoubtedly feel the impact of his presence.

    Would the nation’s first Mormon president use some of his copious capital gains to plate the Village streets with gold (or at least repair its crumbing sidewalks)? Or would the POTUS scoop up property around UTC’s Mormon temple to develop a Romneyland-style theme park?

    Though calls and e-mails to the Romney campaign went unanswered, La Jollan Renata Turquand said she feels having a president residing even part-time in La Jolla would bring great exposure to San Diego’s “Jewel.”

    “The national press is now going to talk about La Jolla as a vacation spot — what the community’s about and how beautiful it is,” she said. “ It’s going to obviously bring extra traffic, but I think it’s going to be a positive thing because he’s going to highlight how beautiful La Jolla is and why somebody with his taste would choose to live here.”


    His taste? I guess money just comes with good taste. I would think a fair number of people might have sufficient taste to wish to live in La Jolla. Mom is horrified. She doesn't want it. She cited Reagan, Nixon and Bush II as having fairly secluded locations. She doesn't want it on our beloved beach. That alone is reason enough to defeat Romney.

    And yes RN. I appreciate your purity in your political views. By not voting for Romney, you are performing a valuable public service. What's the difference anyway? You live in California, don't you?

    Obama 2012.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the Socialist Commonwealth of Massachusetts... Yet it certainly has as much classical liberal history as can be found anywhere. If one only looks.

      Delete
  10. I'm too tired to join the fray, but my simple statement is that purity in political views does nothing to address the serious issues battering this country--poverty, homelessness, destruction of the environment, wars and more wars, the downward spiral of the quality of our schools, unemployment...We're in bad shape and wasting a vote on someone who stands no chace of winning seems selfish and arrogant. Sorry, RN but I just don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Socialist Commonwealth of Massachusetts" ???

    Why is it that every time a black politician is elected to public office, said commonwealth suddenly becomes a 'socialist' entity. Barack Obama = 'socialist, pinko, islamofascist, pinko'! Deval Patrick = 'socialist.' Get it? I am getting damn sick and tired of partisan name-calling and character assassination raised to the level of verbal abuse. And damn sick and tired of Birthers, Flat Earthers, and the rest of the lunatic fringe that now comprises the GOP base. For a person who claims to be independent in thought, you can also be a damn tape recorder for playing back bullshit.

    And if some enterprising Americans start torching GOP headquarters in every town and city, I wouldn't call it 'terrorism.' I'd call it 'cleaning up toxic waste' and 'making America safe for democracy' again.

    OCTOPUS IS B-A-A-C-K !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually Octo, race has nothing to do with it. Certainly no for me. Been referring to MA. as such for years. Going back to the days of white chief executives during the days before Gore invented the internet :)

      I may not share Gov. Patrick's political philosophy but he by no means is the least effective governor MA has ever elected.

      Delete
  12. What's wrong with socialism?

    Nice to have you back, Brother O. :)

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.