Fuck Obama

[chlamor]

[lightningBugout]

Sucks to be pragmatic at times.

You are in no sense of the word being pragmatic you are quite simply supporting the mass-marketed candidate with good diction. You are indeed either willfully ignorant of the massive amount of information that has been placed before your eyes or you are so politically incoherent that you are incapable of grasping easy concepts such as "imperialism." For that is what you are supporting with your support of Obama.

There is nothing more impratical and in fact utterly mad than to believe in the possibility of any meaningful change occurring through the mechanism of the Democratic party. Quite the opposite. Obama is an act of system legitimizing brilliance meant to quell populist outrage and corral all this political energy into the sink of conventional party politics.

You have to admit it is brilliant in it's effects when folks like yourself are voicing support for their masters. Which leads us back to your political acumen and a-historical perspective.

Meanwhile your commander in chief plans to build an embassy in Pakistan to rival the one in Baghdad all of it quite naturally on the taxpayers dime and upon the blood of the Pakistani people. Plus ca' change you fool.

Solely on the issue of Obama there really seems to be a bit of a lynchmob aspect against anyone whose opinion of Obama differs from the one expressed in this thread.

I think it disingenuous to be so wholly dismissive of Obama as you've been here Chlamor. To some degree I choose not to share my opinion of him here because I don't want to use my energy on a conversation about him.

Freemason is being provocative, but your response to him is really dogmatic. I am not "willfully ignorant" and I know more about imperialism than 99.9% of this country. Nor am I voicing support "for my masters" when I support Obama.

But I do not agree that Obama is nothing more than an act of "system legitimizing brilliance" to "quell populist outrage."

Sure there are Obama supporters who are pavlovian cheerleaders or terribly politically ill informed. But there are multiple perspectives on Obama that the soundness and sophistication of your own criticism pales in comparison to. That is not an insult, btw. It is an acknowledgment that outside of the arena in which we're currently going back and forth, there are other approaches towards political discourse that recognize much greater ambiguity.

Rigorous Intuition should be able to welcome those of us who support Obama, or are giving him more time and space than you are, without resorting to insults and name-calling.

ps. Just a reminder to demonstrate that political identities can be complex - Biden was one of the strongest supporters of the 1977 senate hearings on MK Ultra.

[monster]

[chlamor]

Sucks to be pragmatic at times.

You are in no sense of the word being pragmatic you are quite simply supporting the mass-marketed candidate with good diction. You are indeed either willfully ignorant of the massive amount of information that has been placed before your eyes or you are so politically incoherent that you are incapable of grasping easy concepts such as "imperialism." For that is what you are supporting with your support of Obama.

There is nothing more impratical and in fact utterly mad than to believe in the possibility of any meaningful change occurring through the mechanism of the Democratic party. Quite the opposite. Obama is an act of system legitimizing brilliance meant to quell populist outrage and corral all this political energy into the sink of conventional party politics.

You have to admit it is brilliant in it's effects when folks like yourself are voicing support for their masters. Which leads us back to your political acumen and a-historical perspective.

Meanwhile your commander in chief plans to build an embassy in Pakistan to rival the one in Baghdad all of it quite naturally on the taxpayers dime and upon the blood of the Pakistani people. Plus ca' change you fool.

Solely on the issue of Obama there really seems to be a bit of a lynchmob aspect against anyone whose opinion of Obama differs from the one expressed in this thread.

I think it disingenuous to be so wholly dismissive of Obama as you've been here Chlamor. To some degree I choose not to share my opinion of him here because I don't want to use my energy on a conversation about him.

Freemason is being provocative, but your response to him is really dogmatic. I am not "willfully ignorant" and I know more about imperialism than 99.9% of this country. Nor am I voicing support "for my masters" when I support Obama.

But I do not agree that Obama is nothing more than an act of "system legitimizing brilliance" to "quell populist outrage."

Sure there are Obama supporters who are pavlovian cheerleaders or terribly politically ill informed. But there are multiple perspectives on Obama that the soundness and sophistication of your own criticism pales in comparison to.

Rigorous Intuition should be able to welcome those of us who support Obama, or are giving him more time and space than you are, without resorting to insults and name-calling.

The problem here is that you are completely wrong in every respect.

Hey I'm going easy here and will have no mercy on the fools who are in even mildly supporting Obama for any number of convoluted reasons. Fuck the coddling nonsense. You folks who supported him failed to inform yourselves and in your support have done immense damage to many possibilities and in fact are supporting mass murder if only on a lesser scale than the most Imperial warmonger. So maybe I should go easy on that? No thanks. You people failed in every way the likes of us who time and again predicted every single thing that is happening and in doing so you have caused immense damage.

How about then you and the folks who want to play word games owning up to some responsibilties and now that it has become crystal clear what a corporate errand boy your man is you actively struggle against this asshole. But I suppose that's too dirty and would mean something beyond the abstract which y'all wish to avoid.

Don't worry I've heard and read every possible rationalization for supporting Obama and they are all half-baked excuses of cowardice and ill thought out "strategies." Send out a few more if you wish but I will not be gentle in my rebuke.

Unfuckin' believable that anyone could've failed to see this comin' and even harder to believe that anyone could still be even faintly trying to defend such an obvious charlatan.

[lightningBugout]

The problem here is that you are completely wrong in every respect.

The other problem is that you are behaving like a reactionary asshole.

[ninakat]

Ouch.

By Phil Rockstroh

From time to time, events unfold that are so large in scope, so all-encompassing in their implications that one's initial response is muted by an inability to categorize it all within the realm of experience. Previous reference points prove of little service. One's image of oneself and one's place in the world is under siege, perhaps even in danger of being torn away. One stare's into the abyss, until the abyss removes its dark shades and makes direct eye contact. The mind buzzes; one's thoughts scuttle in circles like stunned insects.

.
.
.

http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/

Devastatingly brilliant essay, and absolutely spot on. So much to learn, for those who will open their eyes. Is it foolish pride keeping their delusions nourished?

[nathan28]

Sucks to be pragmatic at times.

You are in no sense of the word being pragmatic you are quite simply supporting the mass-marketed candidate with good diction. You are indeed either willfully ignorant of the massive amount of information that has been placed before your eyes or you are so politically incoherent that you are incapable of grasping easy concepts such as "imperialism." For that is what you are supporting with your support of Obama.

There is nothing more impratical and in fact utterly mad than to believe in the possibility of any meaningful change occurring through the mechanism of the Democratic party. Quite the opposite. Obama is an act of system legitimizing brilliance meant to quell populist outrage and corral all this political energy into the sink of conventional party politics.

You have to admit it is brilliant in it's effects when folks like yourself are voicing support for their masters. Which leads us back to your political acumen and a-historical perspective.

Meanwhile your commander in chief plans to build an embassy in Pakistan to rival the one in Baghdad all of it quite naturally on the taxpayers dime and upon the blood of the Pakistani people. Plus ca' change you fool.

Solely on the issue of Obama there really seems to be a bit of a lynchmob aspect against anyone whose opinion of Obama differs from the one expressed in this thread.

I think it disingenuous to be so wholly dismissive of Obama as you've been here Chlamor. To some degree I choose not to share my opinion of him here because I don't want to use my energy on a conversation about him.

Freemason is being provocative, but your response to him is really dogmatic. I am not "willfully ignorant" and I know more about imperialism than 99.9% of this country. Nor am I voicing support "for my masters" when I support Obama.

But I do not agree that Obama is nothing more than an act of "system legitimizing brilliance" to "quell populist outrage."

Sure there are Obama supporters who are pavlovian cheerleaders or terribly politically ill informed. But there are multiple perspectives on Obama that the soundness and sophistication of your own criticism pales in comparison to.

Rigorous Intuition should be able to welcome those of us who support Obama, or are giving him more time and space than you are, without resorting to insults and name-calling.

The problem here is that you are completely wrong in every respect.

Hey I'm going easy here and will have no mercy on the fools who are in even mildly supporting Obama for any number of convoluted reasons. Fuck the coddling nonsense. You folks who supported him failed to inform yourselves and in your support have done immense damage to many possibilities and in fact are supporting mass murder if only on a lesser scale than the most Imperial warmonger. So maybe I should go easy on that? No thanks. You people failed in every way the likes of us who time and again predicted every single thing that is happening and in doing so you have caused immense damage.

How about then you and the folks who want to play word games owning up to some responsibilties and now that it has become crystal clear what a corporate errand boy your man is you actively struggle against this asshole. But I suppose that's too dirty and would mean something beyond the abstract which y'all wish to avoid.

Don't worry I've heard and read every possible rationalization for supporting Obama and they are all half-baked excuses of cowardice and ill thought out "strategies." Send out a few more if you wish but I will not be gentle in my rebuke.

Unfuckin' believable that anyone could've failed to see this comin' and even harder to believe that anyone could still be even faintly trying to defend such an obvious charlatan.

Chlamor, I really do think you are out of line and I largely agree with you, so there's something to be said for aesthetics. Mostly, you seem to think a social democrat will waltz in.

First, there simply wasn't any indication that Obama's DOJ moves would be an attempt to reimpose pre-Magna Carta rule based on any of his previous actions. Certainly, Bush II showed contempt for basic criminal procedure and civil liberties, but B-Roc came out of the blue with that state secrecy claim, and even asked the Sup. Ct. undo the Michigan v. what'shisface ruling requiring a lawyer be present if a witness/suspect requests it. And preventative detentions. IIRC when he said "closing Gitmo" he didn't mention re-opening it state-side; I had always assumed he meant "closing Gitmo [our most well-known secret prison, but not the others]". None. This is unprecedented action, or, more accurately, precedent-setting, and an outright rightist (as in, "royalist") surprise.

Second, he did set aside a lot of money for rail. If you don't think that's important, then apparently we're in pipelineistan for no reason whatsoever. I personally would like to see all the war money go to that sort of thing but $10 billion is better than $0. So that's one good thing (and, so far, the only.).

Third, I don't think anyone could have foreseen him picking Larry Summers and Tim Geithner to head up his finance team. Like, those guys are serial losers from the '90s--what the fuck was he thinking? I didn't not expect some Banksters, but fuck, a serial failure like Larry "My Policies Were So Bad I Helped Re-Elect The Commies" Summers?

So c. October 2008, thinking Obama would be easier to work with wouldn't have been mistaken. I thought that. Instead, he's doing what he can to cement the Bush Era (1978-2008) legacy of pseudodemocratic aristocracy.

[chlamor]

Chlamor, I really do think you are out of line and I largely agree with you, so there's something to be said for aesthetics. Mostly, you seem to think a social democrat will waltz in.

No. I am being understated in the face of what is one of the most dangerous political figureheads in recent memory. You cannot possibly overstate how destructive and intolerant is the Obama administration and the cultic groups who prop up the Obama "political movement" (of course it is a farce to call it a political movement hence the quotes.)

Many of us knew about this marketing scheme before 2008 and have warned of this for many many months. But the tide of ignorance and delusion swept away these voices and now we are to be concerned about our aesthetic? No thanks. Say it plain.

[Col. Quisp]

Thanks for the post, Sweejack. Very well written.

[harflimon]

.

[Sweejak]

I think Mack White also cut to the chase with this snip from their weekly show. It's around 3 minutes.

Aren't US history books all puffy and proud about the photos they showed shocked Germans after the war? More hypocrisy, too much to catalog.

http://www.anomalytelevision.com/site/2 ... ure-gitmo/

[nathan28]

Chlamor, I really do think you are out of line and I largely agree with you, so there's something to be said for aesthetics. Mostly, you seem to think a social democrat will waltz in.

No. I am being understated in the face of what is one of the most dangerous political figureheads in recent memory. You cannot possibly overstate how destructive and intolerant is the Obama administration and the cultic groups who prop up the Obama "political movement" (of course it is a farce to call it a political movement hence the quotes.)

Many of us knew about this marketing scheme before 2008 and have warned of this for many many months. But the tide of ignorance and delusion swept away these voices and now we are to be concerned about our aesthetic? No thanks. Say it plain.

Fair enough, but if you had said that Obama's charm and cultish following posed a tremendous danger w/r/t his basic policy goals being nasty--I think it poses some, but because characters like Greenwald and Olberman have already started to question him it could be much worse--I'd have agreed.

FWIW I tend to think that the current Democratic strategy is to co-opt the center-rightism of the Republicans and essentially force the Republicans to, much like Bush did in 2004, alienate their middling voters in favor of their retardo-fascist diehards. Doug Henwood and others have been suggesting the same. I think that's pretty dangerous for all of us, but, unfortunately, could be all too successful.

[ninakat]

I think Mack White also cut to the chase with this snip from their weekly show. It's around 3 minutes.

Aren't US history books all puffy and proud about the photos they showed shocked Germans after the war? More hypocrisy, too much to catalog.

http://www.anomalytelevision.com/site/2 ... ure-gitmo/

Absolutely right on. From the radio show:

"This is the epitome of evil. Obama is letting people go free who we know tortured children, and we don't know that one individual in GITMO -- this hell on earth that was created by our government -- we don't know if any of them are guilty of anything, and he wants to keep them locked up?"

[harflimon]

.

[Sweejak]

One of my favorite artists, Anna Missed, who does work on chainsawn blocks of wood.

The cleverly titled "Notsee"