Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Open thread: commercials we love Previous entry: The official Vatican line: the Pope is being set up

Teabaggers vs. fundies

Roy records the teabagger bloggers getting pissed about it,* but I enjoyed Ben Smith’s article about how social conservatives like Tony Perkins and Mike Huckabee are beginning to get antsy about the teabaggers, because the teabaggers aren’t respecting their right, as fundamentalist Christians, to dominate the conservative movement.  (Everything with conservatives is about establishing the pecking order.  Everything.)  Teabaggers are pissed at Smith, who they perceive as sowing discontent and running off the fundies, but they only think that because paranoia is their ideology.  I think Smith is probably on their side.  His teabagger contacts, after all, make it clear they want to downplay religious right issues, so they can cast a wider net.**  And he’s doing his best, by showing that they’re effective enough at this goal that fundies are very, very carefully complaining about losing the status of #1 Assholes that they enjoyed under President Bush.

For anyone who’s lived in Republicanland, the rift Smith describes is nothing new.  There have always been two kinds of conservatives, the fundies and what Smith calls the “libertarians”, but who I’m happy to call the teabaggers.  These are the folks for whom racist/classist resentment matters more than sexist resentment, to make it simple.  You may even come across an occasional teabagger sort who has feminist sympathies, but who finds herself more at home with Republicans, because she’s got racist beliefs and she enjoys being an asshole.  (No wonder so many PUMAs were eager to run for the doors!)  But in most cases, there’s very little ideological disagreement between these two camps, but there is an argument over lifestyles and priorities.  On the lifestyle front, some teabaggers annoy fundies because teabaggers think church is boring, religion is kind of silly, and they don’t really apologize for being fornicators.  In addition, some may find the creationist thing really stupid and roll their eyes at the fundie belief that gays can be changed with therapy. 

But Smith goes too far when he describes this as a “socially liberal” streak of Republicans.  In my experience, the libertarian streak of the conservative movement is sexist as hell, they just write the issue out differently in their minds.  For fundies, sexism is expressed in trying to shove women back in the kitchen and punish them for their sexuality. Teabaggers enjoy sex a little too much for that, but you’ll find that they have a high tolerance for sexual harassment and even abuse, and will be quick to assume women are dumber or less capable.  Both take a sick glee is seeing women get punished for perceived sins.  You may meet some libertarian-types who support a woman’s right to choose, but they are right with the fundies in setting up restrictions, geographic and financial, that make abortion available to well-off women while keeping the poor from having it.  Both will justify this cruelty as encouraging “responsibility”, but of course for fundies that means the responsibility to abstain, whereas teabaggers will assume the poor are too stupid to use contraception. 

Or to summarize, the two camps are the pearl-clutching prudes who have fantasies of lives run by the church and strict gender roles with sex pushed out of sight, and the loud-mouthed assholes with a racist streak who enjoy conservatism because it means they get to feel superior to anyone who has had misfortune in their lives.  In their purest forms, they can definitely butt heads.  Fundies can judge teabagger lifestyles, and teabaggers can get impatient with the occasional charity work that fundies do for people the teabaggers would prefer to make fun of.  But life is rarely that simple, and I’ve seen that the past 8 years under Bush have created a lot more people willing to do a hybrid sort of thing.  Think of James O’Keefe and his friends—-they combine racist assholery aimed at organizations like ACORN that do work on behalf of low-income neighborhoods with fundamentalist anti-sex nuttery aimed at Planned Parenthood.  Organizations like the Independent Women’s Forum initially started off as being areligious anti-feminist groups, aimed mostly at supporting the rape culture and fighting on a secular level against feminist movements to fight against violence and for equality, but more and more of their time is spent on the fundie agenda of encouraging young women to obsess over virginity.  People like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin seamlessly wind together the religiosity and the “I got mine, fuck you” mentality of the teabaggers. 


And I think this coalition and even blending works together well under a Republican administration, and the reason is because Republicans don’t care about running up debts.  Which sounds weird, but it’s not, if you look closely at their wish lists.  Teabaggers want a suppressed minimum wage, tax cuts for the wealthy, and slashed social spending that goes towards actually improving the lives of poor people.  Fundies don’t have a problem with the government spending money on social programs, as long as they’re the recipients.  These two goals work together, because teabaggers don’t really see giving money to fundies so they can run marriage programs here and abstinence-only campaigns in Africa as something that will do anything effective to lift poor people up, so they don’t see it as a threat.  Both groups support lavish spending on war—-fundies because they see it as asserting Christian dominance, and teabaggers because it gives them a hard-on.  By not caring about running up huge deficits, the Republicans make everyone happy.  They start wars, cut taxes, suppress anything that could relieve poverty, and spread money around to fundamentalist charities.  It’s only when Democrats get into office that these groups start to perceive resources as becoming scarce, and scarcity causes people to turn on each other. 

But I wouldn’t get too hopeful.  The tensions between the two worldviews only crop up when it comes to the very small minority of conservatives who are genuinely honest and not prone to hypocrisy.  The coalition holds together for a few reasons.  Most libertarian-leaning conservatives see fundies as useful idiots, and so they tolerate them.  Fundies are willing to be useful idiots, and they usually focus their energies on social reforms that are least likely to directly harm their fellow travelers in the conservative movement.  (For instance, teabaggers who don’t seem to care about gay marriage really just don’t care.  They’re not going to freak out if it’s legalized, but they’re not going to defend it, either.  So fundies get to run anti-gay campaigns without internal resistance.  But if fundies went out against divorce, there would be tension.)  And frankly, the leadership of the conservative movement has gotten really, really good at creating issues where the two camps seem like one, further encouraging them to come together. For instance, Smith points out that the “no federal funding for abortion” thing gives a little something to everyone.  Consequently, you’re seeing more people who are libertarian-minded signing up for the fundie agenda, and vice versa. 


*Because they clearly think it’s in their best interests to keep their movement a bundle of ill-defined resentments.  Any move towards taking a specific policy stand besides, “Wah!” is scary, because people will start to say, “Hey, that policy idea is stupid!” and will leave the movement.  The further away from reality their protests, the better.

**And all real issues, actually.  Again, the more diffuse and harder to understand their platform is, the better.  That way any asshole with a chip on his shoulder and a fear that The Other is out to steal his sperm/his guns/his money can project what he wants on the movement. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 09:24 AM • (70) Comments

Or to summarize, the two camps are the pearl-clutching prudes who have fantasies of lives run by the church and strict gender roles with sex pushed out of sight, and the loud-mouthed assholes with a racist streak who enjoy conservatism because it means they get to feel superior to anyone who has had misfortune in their lives.

Spot-on, as always.  My parents and extended family back home in the midwest are firmly in that second category.  The Jesus-based Republicans have gotten so much play for so long that I was afraid people forgot about that other flavor of Conservatism, the one that doesn’t care about church at all, only exerting dominance over your perceived inferiors.

I remember a family gathering a few years back and the TV was on showing clips from a George Bush town hall, and some idiot was blathering on about how he felt that Bush was “sent to us from God” or some crap like that, and my not-that-uncool cousin said “You now, I’m a total Republican, I’ll never ever vote Democrat in my life, but those people make me ashamed to be one of them” or something to that effect.  It’s another way they can feel superior, even toward people on their own team.

Fast forward a few years, that same cousin now has a bi-racial child out-of-wedlock.  I thought that was wonderful comeuppance for all the racist declarations I had to listen to his dad (my uncle) foolishly and drunkenly make at the Sunday dinner table all those years.  And the kid is adorable and wonderful, and my cousin’s latina girlfriend is my favorite new person in the family, part because she’s so cool and part because she so totally goes against everything my lily-white midwestern family thought they were about.

Comment #1: suet  on  03/14  at  10:50 AM

Though I think there actually is a more complicated backstory here (e.g. the disagreements between libertarians like Murray Rothbard, who staunchly opposed the Vietnam War, and “fusionists” like Frank Meyer in the 1960s were real), I agree that we’re unlikely to see any serious split between the (g)libertarian and social conservative wings of American conservatism.  They made their piece with each other decades ago. And confident predictions that they’d start a-feudin’ have been made ever since Reagan won in 1980…and they’ve never really been proven true. All the major compromises have already been made. Heck, the teabagger frame itself seems to punt any claim to a larger libertarianism that might be suspicious of, e.g., the USA PATRIOT Act and torture.  As for the Politico story: hyenas snapping at each other is not a sign of impending speciation.

Comment #2: Ben Alpers  on  03/14  at  12:14 PM

“she enjoys being an asshole.  (No wonder so many PUMAs were eager to run for the doors!)”

I think we can call this irony.  Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Obama so PUMAs clearly did not vote switch. You have no data for the basis for this slam. I have seen NO data indicating that the teabaggers are anything but the hard core Bush supporters, the 28%.

What is ironic is you being an asshole to people who’s greatest sin was truly wanting Clinton above Obama in the white house, given their policy differences are very small. Yes, at moments in this health care battle I have been saddened that it was not Hillary at the helm.  (Stupak) I would never, ever, have supported McCain and poll data bears that out about Hillary supporters.

And yeah it hurts to have a first choice candidate lose. And that you would call me an asshole to repeat your victory dance in a post about how ‘that other side is filled with assholes who love nothing but being able to piss on people’  is ironic. As opposed to your loving embrace with people who disagreed with you two years ago in a primary. I was surprised and a bit hurt by that spontaneous slap in the face, about how other people should not be, basically, mean to others in their movements. So if you years-ago-Hillary-primary-supporters like me to get the fuck gone because I disagreed in the primary, it is your blog and your right. But to express that in this post is ironic.

Comment #3: just sayin  on  03/14  at  12:25 PM

Fundies, teabaggers, whatever, they are all the same dickasses in my book.

But when we use the term “libertarian”, can we specify them as “libertarian-right” cause the term itself is good.  It’s like “liberal” is bad when used in “neoliberalism”, but it’s good when used as just “liberal.”

Comment #4: Albert Cirrus  on  03/14  at  12:28 PM

What is ironic is you being an asshole to people who’s greatest sin was truly wanting Clinton above Obama in the white house, given their policy differences are very small. Yes, at moments in this health care battle I have been saddened that it was not Hillary at the helm.  (Stupak) I would never, ever, have supported McCain and poll data bears that out about Hillary supporters.

If it doesn’t apply to you personally, then you don’t have anything to get twisted about. There were lots of PUMAs who not only voted for McCain, but who have in the past few months continued to lie about Obama and frustrate nearly everything he’s tried to accomplish, and let’s not pretend otherwise. Were they a statistically large enough number of people to show up in the polling? No—and they never were, even in the primaries. But that doesn’t stop them from being vocal.

Comment #5: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  03/14  at  12:41 PM

Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Obama so PUMAs clearly did not vote switch.

A PUMA is not “anyone who preferred Hillary in the primary.”  A PUMA is someone who left the party and voted for McCain after Hillary was defeated in the primary.  That’s why the PUMA motto is “Party Unity My Ass” (get it?)

If you didn’t vote for McCain, you’re not a PUMA.  If you didn’t raise money for Hillary and then go on TV and declare that Barack Obama was an “elitist,” unlike your Rothschild-marrying self, then you’re not a PUMA.  If you weren’t captured on video screeching about how Obama was “an unqualified black male,” then you’re not a PUMA.

Clear now?

Comment #6: Mnemosyne  on  03/14  at  01:05 PM

#3 The WAAAAAAAHmbulance is long gone.

Comment #7: sirkowski  on  03/14  at  01:06 PM

I would cut off my left nut to replace Obama with Hillary Clinton. God, can you imagine what the year of a Democratic majority could have accomplished if we had somebody who was any good in the top job?

Comment #8: Alkaloid  on  03/14  at  01:11 PM

George Will writes the two major parties are each tripartite.

And it makes a good sound bite, but he leaves out the racists who form the Republican parties true core, and the 50% of all Democrats who don’t fit his convenient bogeyman categories.

Comment #9: xebecs  on  03/14  at  01:13 PM

There were lots of PUMAs who not only voted for McCain, but who have in the past few months continued to lie about Obama and frustrate nearly everything he’s tried to accomplish, and let’s not pretend otherwise. Were they a statistically large enough number of people to show up in the polling?

There were lots of them ... but they weren’t statistically significant. Yeah, really.

Comment #10: firefall  on  03/14  at  01:23 PM

By the way, also note how Will classifies Republicans by their beliefs but Democrats by identity (African American) and selfish interests (union and trial lawyers).  It appears that Democrats are never ideologically motivated—they just want the government to give them stuff.  I’m so glad we have towering intellects like Will to explain “how things is” to us.

Comment #11: xebecs  on  03/14  at  01:26 PM

There were lots of them ... but they weren’t statistically significant. Yeah, really.

My sarcasm detector is broken, but in a country with 300 million people this is perfectly reasonable.

Comment #12: Tree  on  03/14  at  01:41 PM

Yeah, by the rules of projection, George Will believes that Republicans are comprised of anti-black racists, union-busting plutocrats, and tort-busting corrupt plutocrats.

And he’s still wrong!  Because he left out the Left Behind faction anyway.

Comment #13: Punditus Maximus  on  03/14  at  01:44 PM

#9: This is probably not the time to enter into this discussion but:

1) The problems with the last year are not, principally, the result of Obama not being good at his job.  Higher up in the list of things that have gone wrong: taking office in the midst of an economic crisis; a continued commitment to Wall-Street-first economics; too great a commitment to our continuing wars of choice (and a more general refusal to sufficiently reverse the “security” policies of the last administration); the quality of the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate.  Each of these things would have pertained in a Hillary Clinton White House.

2) On matters of policy, Clinton and Obama were nearly indistinguishable from each other.  The chief difference on HCR was that Clinton favored an individual mandate. The individual mandate is now part of the Obama Plan.

3) Hillary Clinton was terrible at the job of running for president.  Her campaign had all the marks of a winner in late 2007, but, in large measure due to mismanagement by the idiots with whom she surrounded herself, she managed to lose to Obama.  What makes you think that either Clinton or her incompetent staff would have been better than Obama at running things?  If Mark Penn had David Axelrod’s gig, do you think things would be running more smoothly in the White House?

I’m not at all a huge fan of Obama, though I’m still very glad I voted for him (President McCain would have been worse).  But I have a hard time imagining that things would have been substantially different under a Clinton administration than they are under an Obama administration. And to the extent that they would have been different, my guess is that they would have been a little worse: an even more aggressively hawkish foreign policy, perhaps; less competent political management; etc.  The main moments of political success of the Obama administration have come when the president has seized the bully pulpit to frame an issue (the Cairo Speech, the State of the Union, the back-and-forth at the GOP retreat, etc.). For whatever it’s worth, Clinton was never good at this sort of thing.

Comment #14: Ben Alpers  on  03/14  at  01:52 PM

I think the main reason some of us, including myself, long for Clinton, is because she has principles, gives a shit, and can get things done. ALso, she is not in love with the Republicans, which Obama does a really good job of seeming to be!

Comment #15: KMTBERRY  on  03/14  at  01:59 PM

she has principles, gives a shit, and can get things done.

I’m afraid I don’t see any evidence for any of these claims, especially the last.

I agree that she is less wedded to the (IMO profoundly silly) trope of bipartisanship than Obama is.  But Obama’s insistence on making bipartisan noises has been of much less consequence than: 1) Senate Democratic leadership’s insistence on finding a bipartisan compromise on HCR; 2) the Democratic Party’s inability in both Houses but especially the Senate, to find even a majority in favor of its supposed positions on such things as the public option, card check, and closing GITMO.

And Clinton is just as wedded as Obama to the center-right, market-oriented, “New Democrat” leanings that are a much deeper source of the problem with our nation’s current leadership.

Comment #16: Ben Alpers  on  03/14  at  02:06 PM

“Republicans are composed of social conservatives, ficscal conservatives and religious service attendess.”

There are plenty of “conservatives” who are concerned with both social and fiscal issues.

But “social conservatives” and “religious service attendees” (whatever that means besides “conservative believers”) are pretty much the same people.  Virtually every conservative with a religious fixation is socially “conservative”, and of the other “conservatives” most either don’t care about social issues (correctly assuming that those at the top of the social foodchain needn’t be concerned the restrictions will apply to them) or merely use the buzzwords of SocialCons to manipulate “conservative” proles into supporting them.

I don’t think there are any actual genuine Conservatives left anymore.  Either they are Republicans because they are trying to push for a theocracy and eliminate civil rights for everyone not a white male christianist, or they’re in it just for the tax cuts, service cuts, no-bid contracts, and privatization.

Two groups of Republicans, not three…

And the racists who moved over to the Republican Party from the Democratic and Dixiecrat Parties after the Johnson’s Civil Rights legislation was signed are distributed throughout the Republican masses…

Comment #17: MikeEss  on  03/14  at  02:10 PM

Interesting analysis. I would suggest Glenn Beck’s recent suggestion (ok, he really impored more than suggested) that people leave churches who support “social justice” is an exception to his usual skill at blending these two ideologies. He is clearly falling heavier on the teabagger side.

Comment #18: bethany  on  03/14  at  02:17 PM

Seriously?  You all are arguing over how wonderful an imaginary president would be versus the actual president?  Clinton is not President.  You can project all you want and tell yourself that she would be doing a much better job than Obama but we’ll never know, will we?  So let’s all move back into Realityland and keep our attention focused on what is actually happening and stop quibbling over shit that happened 2 years ago.

Comment #19: BadKitty  on  03/14  at  02:22 PM

BadKitty,

I do apologize for threadjacking (like I say upthread, this isn’t the place for the discussion) but any attempt to analyze what’s wrong with the present and to improve things will necessarily involve considering counterfactuals. I agree that this particular counterfactual is not very practically helpful (Hillary Clinton cannot be made president at this point). But if, in fact, the biggest problem we were facing was that Obama was just incompetent at his job and that everything would have been fine had the steady hands of Hillary Clinton, Mark Penn, Lanny Davis, and Co. been in charge, that would still be worth knowing. In fact, I think that’s a pack of nonsense.  And much of what’s wrong with Obama was also wrong with Clinton.

But whichever side of this disagreement you find yourself on, figuring these things out will be of some consequence as we make future political choices in the months and years to come.

Comment #20: Ben Alpers  on  03/14  at  02:34 PM

Long ago (well, easily within living memory) there was a socially liberal bunch of republicans; they were moderate fiscal conservatives and opposed to some kinds of regulations. But I don’t think those are the ones Smith is talking about. Which is kinda sad.

Comment #21: paul  on  03/14  at  03:18 PM

I think all of your points are accurate; however, I would add an additional thought: The teabagger libertarians—generally the upper spokes people, like Dick Armey—try to portray themselves and intellectually honest purveyors of a real political philosophy. They find it hard to argue that that big govt takes away their liberty and then say govt should take away the liberty of teh gays—though they’re happy to take away the liberty of women and argue they have given itt to a blastocyst-american

Comment #22: sjk  on  03/14  at  07:10 PM

But I wouldn’t get too hopeful.  The tensions between the two worldviews only crop up when it comes to the very small minority of conservatives who are genuinely honest and not prone to hypocrisy.  The coalition holds together for a few reasons.  Most libertarian-leaning conservatives see fundies as useful idiots, and so they tolerate them.  Fundies are willing to be useful idiots, and they usually focus their energies on social reforms that are least likely to directly harm their fellow travelers in the conservative movement.  (For instance, teabaggers who don’t seem to care about gay marriage really just don’t care.  They’re not going to freak out if it’s legalized, but they’re not going to defend it, either.  So fundies get to run anti-gay campaigns without internal resistance.  But if fundies went out against divorce, there would be tension.) And frankly, the leadership of the conservative movement has gotten really, really good at creating issues where the two camps seem like one, further encouraging them to come together. For instance, Smith points out that the “no federal funding for abortion” thing gives a little something to everyone.  Consequently, you’re seeing more people who are libertarian-minded signing up for the fundie agenda, and vice versa.

You will recall that the Night of the Long Knives occurred only after the election was won…

Comment #23: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/14  at  07:45 PM

Of course there is a strong and unacknowledged religious streak in these Libertarians.  To take pleasure in punishing women for their perceived “sins” is the delight that the Earthly delight that these saints obtain for themselves, in line with typical patriarchal reasoning which has its archetype in the humorless 15th Century text, The Malleus Maleficarum.  To the degree that they assume that those who suffer from misfortunes are also being punished for invisible “sins” they take their cues from the 16the Century theologican, John Calvin, who believed that only a few were predestined to receive God’s grace, and the rest would be cast into the fires of Hell for Eternity.

Comment #24: scratchy888  on  03/14  at  08:21 PM

Yup, scratch a libertarian and you’ll find a Calvinist.

Comment #25: weirdnoise  on  03/14  at  09:43 PM

”...and can get things done.”

No, she can’t.

Any respect I might have had for the current Secretary of State evaporated in the heat of the stupid, wasteful & painfully unnecessary fiasco she made of health care back in the early ‘90s.  Fast forward to her 2008 campaign & lo & behold, the entire ugly mess repeats itself all over again.

Single payer health-care for each & every American, properly presented & forcefully argued, is a non-issue & would guarantee the kind of permanent super-majority for the Democrats that the GOP was crowing about a few years ago.  In monetaty terms alone, it would be what jumps starts the economy, going from decline to affluence & bypass recovery altogether.  It would be precisely the all-out one-stroke smackdown victory-dance level of accomplishment the Yanks seem to love so much & the death-knell for those who stood opposed to it.  It would steamroll the GOP & the insurance industry back into the shit they came from & they know this better than anyone.

So what’s Obama up to?  Playing the jerk-off “bipartisan” BS lifted directly from the Hillary/Bill playbook, & just look how well that’s turning out, handing Glenn Beck a whole new lease on the life of a broadcasting career that’s at least 15 years past it’s best-before date & vaulting Sarah Palin onto the wingnut-welfare talk-show gravy-train.

The former 1st Lady & Senator from New York had her chance back in 1993 & she completely.  Totally.  Utterly.  Blew it.  & everyone else continues to pay the price.  But I guess having served on Wall-Mart’s board of directors means never having to say you’re sorry.

</off topic>

Comment #26: Smartpatrol  on  03/14  at  10:24 PM

I always love the Obama apologists, blaming basically everything on Congress. So the President has no power? Fine, the conservatives in the senate are to blame.

How much work did he work at getting rid of Sen Collins in Maine?  She won in a state where he won over 60% of the vote. Obama ended the campaign with over $18 million unspent. What about the Georgia run-off? MA special election? The source of all his problems lies with Congress yet he doesn’t seem to want to lift a finger to put more allies there. Who’s fault is that?

The fact that he refuses to make any recess appointments even when Republicans block his nominees (with the help of Conservadems, as well) shows how much he cares about getting things done.

Comment #27: bay of arizona  on  03/14  at  11:08 PM

I always love the Obama apologists, blaming basically everything on Congress. So the President has no power? Fine, the conservatives in the senate are to blame.

Just to be clear (in case this comment was directed at me).  The only strong claims I made about Obama in this thread were:

1) He’s better than McCain would have been.

2) There’s no reason whatsoever to think that Hillary Clinton would have been a more effective president and a number of reasons to think she would have been less effective.

3) He and Clinton both come from the same wing of their party (more’s the pity).

Obama could certainly have dealt with Congress more effectively than he has.  But Congress has plenty of problems of its own that would continue to get in the way of good policymaking even with perfect White House management.

Comment #28: Ben Alpers  on  03/15  at  12:34 AM

Aw, gee, Smartpatrol, so nice to see you overlook the sheer hell that Hillary got for every breath she took during the nineties and since. Did you know she murdered Vince Foster? Is a secret lesbian? Won’t fuck Bill but somehow hates it when he cheats on him because she LURVES him despite being a murdering lesbian who’s had sixty zillion abortions? Did you miss that? Because by blaming the whole heatlh care mess on HER and not on the forces that opposed her—-remember impeachment, which was only directed at her husband?——you’ve selectively edited history and given people a good case for wondering why in fuck you left out some pretty damned significant facts about the whole period.

And blaming Hillary for Obama’s fellating the Republicans is not only inaccurate but just low and quite possibly sexist besides. Gee, blaming a woman for a man’s actions in sexual terms! Haven’t heard that before! 

God, I’d forgotten how vile, untruthful and obsessed the Hillary haters are. They make Obama haters look like the Abominable Snowman in that Xmas special, because when it comes to Obama their hearts might melt but when it comes to Hillary they have a hard on of solid ice.

Comment #29: ginmar  on  03/15  at  02:28 AM

Well to rehijack this thread back onto track, the teabaggers are inevitably going to fall into line this fall or they’re going to try to push extremely conservative candidates that will lose in any swing/middle states.  What upsets the fundamentalist side of the party is that the teabaggers don’t want to kowtow to the leadership though they’re willing to listen to non-elected blowhards which as much as Newt Gingrich and the rest may kiss their asses don’t like simply because they never risk their political lives by running.  They’re armchair politicians running a racist/class movement.

Now to un-hijack, Obama is the president.  The last time a president had a party back him was Bush II and that was simply because they were robbing the government and lining their pockets ala Teapot Dome but instead of it being domestic oil they opted for foreign.  The last 7-9 presidents had uphill battles with congress on most of their more “radical” issues.  Would Hillary Clinton have had an easier time?  Unlikely, with guys like Jason Altmire and the general blue dog dems who are scared of their own shadow running around in the house the party really is left and center at the same time.  Clinton was already able to be a technical president in the 90s, she didn’t wrangle congress to pass health care back then and frankly the republicans would paint her twice as bad as they have obama on the issue.  It’s atleast easier to identify the Klan in the tea party, the misogynists would be much better at hiding. 

Course a great deal of this “I wish X was president” is due to the fact we’re getting mopey a year in.  Grow a pair and deal with the realities.  Course the longer they drag this healthcare bill out the closer to primaries they get the easier it will be to ride the good feelings into the long summer before election and then when things are cooling off and unemployment falls further the democrats can come on strong in 2010.  If anybody remembers the 2008 campaign FOX news and the rest were stumping so hard for McCain it became painfully obvious they weren’t fair or balanced.  How has their rhetoric changed?  They’ve gotten blatantly more racist? Ok, will that win them votes? Not likely.  So focus on the things we can change.

Comment #30: Xeranar  on  03/15  at  06:40 AM

Wow.  Where to begin?  I could debunk every one of those dipshit right-wing mythologies you seem hold so dear & clearly still obsess over.  I could point out the goddamn obvious & draw attention to the fact that the the same cretin responsible for the “Hillary & Bill shot Vince Foster just to watch him die” nonsense was the same person then-Senator Clinton hired to run her campaign.  I could point out that the Clinton(Hillary & Bill) strategy of ignoring the crazies in the hope that they’ll go away has been adopted by Obama w/ utterly predictable (& therefore perfectly avoidable) results.  I could also point out your history of toxic, unhinged, mean-spirited, petty, small-minded, bile-soaked & utterly disingenuous attacks for imagined slights because ginmar assumes that any thread ginmar ever comments on is all about ginmar, but you excel @ such things it would be cruel to take that away.  & mocking the mentally ill is just plain heartless.

God, I’d forgotten how vile, untruthful and obsessed....blah-blah-blah.  Take a look in the mirror.  & get over yourself while you’re at it.

Comment #31: Smartpatrol  on  03/15  at  06:42 AM

the teabaggers are inevitably going to fall into line this fall or they’re going to try to push extremely conservative candidates that will lose in any swing/middle states

I certainly hope you’re right, but given the history of democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory & the MSM carry the water for right-wing noise, I’ve a picture of the Tbgrs yelling “Boo!” @ debates the same way they did @ town halls this summer, Blue Dogs running for cover & pulling the party to the centre-right in the process of trying to sound like moderate republicans, progressives staying home on election day because of HCR having been killed off by dying the death of a thousand cuts & they’re fed up w/ voting for lesser evils & waking up to find out it’s the Republican Sweep of ‘94 all over again.

I really, REALLY hope I’m wrong & that your right.

Comment #32: Smartpatrol  on  03/15  at  06:55 AM

Hey, asshole, if you have a personal issue with me, take it to email or to my blog because I have not a fuckin’ clue who you are, what your problem is, and what doseage you’re supposed to be on.

  Love to see the demonstration of my point in action: Hillary haters are unhinged, vicious, and they’ll blame her for….everything.  You’re blaming her for the health care mess right now? She’s not President, you asshole! 

  Of course your refutation of those rightwing screeds matters. Gee, Glenn Beck’s been put in his place, somehow, because you tut-tutted and waved your finger at his pixels.  You endorse blaming the victim, I see.  And you’re capable of carrying all sorts of grudges.  If you claim to be a liberal, and a male, it’s a great display of just how misogynistic so many leftwingers really are.  They always like to claim it’s only one or two women they have a problem with, but that’s just what they tell people. And it’s not limited to men.

  Really, it’s shit like this from people on one’s alleged own side that makes me give up in disgust over everybody.  Hillary’s the devil and to blame for everything; fill in the excuse, even sixteen years later.  I can’t imagine that mindset is limited to her.

Comment #33: ginmar  on  03/15  at  08:29 AM

I just noticed the ‘mentally ill’ now, too, and this will be my last comment:  I might be mentally ill, but what, exactly, is your excuse? And do you really feel better about yourself now?

Comment #34: ginmar  on  03/15  at  08:54 AM

I could point out that the Clinton(Hillary & Bill) strategy of ignoring the crazies in the hope that they’ll go away has been adopted by Obama w/ utterly predictable (& therefore perfectly avoidable) results. 

This.

The Clinton vs. Obama Wars were—and remain—a good example of the narcissism of minor distinctions.  These are two very, very similar politicians who would have ended up with some of the same people in their administrations and would have faced—and created for themselves—very similar problems.

In the short run, Obama is our president and those who say “deal with it” are right.  Things could, in fact, be a whole lot worse under plenty of other people, including most notably John McCain.

In the long run, the question Democrats should be asking themselves is why the 2008 race boiled down to Obama and Clinton and why voters didn’t have any better choices from the progressive wing of their party. And they should be working to make sure that in 2016 they have such better choices.

Comment #35: Ben Alpers  on  03/15  at  01:27 PM

I certainly hope you’re right, but given the history of democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory & the MSM carry the water for right-wing noise, I’ve a picture of the Tbgrs yelling “Boo!” @ debates the same way they did @ town halls this summer, Blue Dogs running for cover & pulling the party to the centre-right in the process of trying to sound like moderate republicans, progressives staying home on election day because of HCR having been killed off by dying the death of a thousand cuts & they’re fed up w/ voting for lesser evils & waking up to find out it’s the Republican Sweep of ‘94 all over again.

The whole image that the democrats are weak and likely to fail is manufactured at best.  Conspiratorial at worst.  Normally democrats don’t sink to the lowest common denominator and don’t know how to counter racism/classism/sexism without slinging the very mud they’re trying to avoid.  The whole Willy Horton example exemplifies this and what can they do?  They’re thinking intelligent human beings, they don’t realize the majority of this country is barely literate and is selfish to such a point they would see others die so that they can be comforted slightly more. 

Overall though the teabaggers are a small minority and actually seem to only have real sway in the republican party.  Massachusetts was more a fluke that most anybody cares to admit, the democrat was lackadaisical Brown was an likable fool.  Come primary time if the truly hard-right Ron Paul types win the primaries in more purple states they’re going to go down in flames.  Progressives who stay home aren’t progressives, they’re damned fools.  I would rather vote for the lesser of two evils (which is such a misnomer) than not vote at all.  The whole lesser of two evils is the perfect conservative argument though, isn’t it?  Just because the candidate who is more progressive isn’t truly far-left he isn’t a good candidate, right?  Yet routinely Republicans bitch about moderates yet they elected them when it counted.  The conservative movement isn’t principled, it’s out there to win and set the storyline.  Which if you let them they’ll dominate politics, which is why I refuse to let them talk in their terms about my electorate.  Stand up and start building the storyline rather than listening to it.

Comment #36: Xeranar  on  03/15  at  03:07 PM

Well, to be honest, teabaggers aren’t statistically significant. They get a lot of press attention, and they like to think they’re more a political force to be reckoned with than they are, but there’s a reason they’re clinging like barnacles to the S.S. Republican (well, apart from the whole thing being orchestrated by the Republican party to build support to hamstring the public option before it even had a chance to stand up).

The 24-hour news cycle can find endless interest in flogging the “could the teabaggers split and form their own party?” question because it’s perfect political masturbation that everyone gets excited about (the teabaggers because they feel they’re the ones being stroked, and the democrats because they know that a split in the GOP would mean a Dem win).

Comment #37: Mighty Ponygirl  on  03/15  at  06:01 PM

The Republicans like to be scary, it’s true. However, people like this represent another silent group that might be too smart or too whatever to haul badly-spelled racist signs out in the street.  This is not a liberal country. These people speak for a lot of others, and those others are hatemongers. If you’re not a white guy or (under certain conditions) a good white woman, well, sucks to be you, you’re out of luck.

These people perceive themselves as righteous, honest, honorable, and under seige.  They build their self image on that. Fuck with that and it’s like backing a rat into a corner. They’re mean, they’re nasty, and what they’ll do in public is nothing compared to what they’ll do in private—-where there aren’t any witnesses.

Comment #38: ginmar  on  03/15  at  06:13 PM

The 24-hour news cycle can find endless interest in flogging the “could the teabaggers split and form their own party?” question because it’s perfect political masturbation that everyone gets excited about (the teabaggers because they feel they’re the ones being stroked, and the democrats because they know that a split in the GOP would mean a Dem win).

This is exactly why a democracy is designed against 24-hour news cycles.  I know that outlawing CNN/Fox and the rest won’t cork the genie again but even if the bloggers and the internet as a whole took up the slack the lack of it being droned at you whenever you’re in the room with a TV would solve some of the issues overall.

I think unless the tea party does get the strokes it wants the S.S. Republican is sunk.  The Tea Party types were the people who delivered those desperate votes to keep them relevant in the federal system as the country trends farther left/urban.  In most cases it was independents that swung elections but without that core group of racists and hatemongers to vote then the numbers just don’t stack up for them. 

As for the US not being a liberal country…..That’s harder to define.  When the US has elected LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama it can be judged atleast being center-left.  In most cases when people are actually explained the differences, told how the economy works, and such they tend to lean towards the left because the left awards more to everybody. 

Bah….It’s been a long day.

Comment #39: Xeranar  on  03/15  at  07:48 PM

In most cases when people are actually explained the differences, told how the economy works, and such they tend to lean towards the left because the left awards more to everybody.

So you’re saying that the future of leftism in America depends on the voters being informed and engaged?

Comment #40: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/15  at  10:08 PM

Wow. Even after all this time, people are still arguing over which complete asshole that doesn’t give a shit about the American people would have been a less-bad president. Despite the fact that both assholes in question are in the same administration that is happily pushing a right-wing agenda that is causing suffering and death worldwide. Who needs Republicans when you have Democrats?

Comment #41: No One of Consequence  on  03/16  at  01:08 AM

I so love the ‘both sides are just as bad’ argument.

Comment #42: ginmar  on  03/16  at  01:42 AM

Hey, asshole, if you have a personal issue with me, take it to email or to my blog…

So I can watch you kick Steve Irwin’s corpse some more?  I’ll pass.

Comment #43: Smartpatrol  on  03/16  at  06:12 AM

OMFG…..You’re pissed about something I said about fifteen bajillion years ago? About some Australian dude who means nothing to you? God, no wonder you hate Hillary. I bet you have a problem with every woman who dares say something that you disagree with, even in the slightest, and the viciousness you display here is of course absolutely justified in your seething little brain, no doubt. And the pretentious music hipster thing is such a cliche.

No one of consequence——-saying ‘two assholes’ is the ‘both sides are just as bad argument.’ It also leaves out the sexist nature of the constant attacks on Hillary for the past sixteen years, which Not-So-Smart-Patrol displays, blaming her for having an undue influence over the GOP, the whole Democratic party, crop circles, and so forth.

This kind of shit is why I say the US is not liberal. Liberal guy are always a leeetle bit too eager to find an excuse to whip out the sexism against women once they have an excuse. Take Ann Coulter. Or Mann oulter, as some of them so wittily call her. Har har! It’s like they think if they do enough good works or say the right thing long enough they can earn up valuable sexism points with which to attack certain women. Conservatives and Baggers, of course, just flat out do this, because their view of women is so blinkered, but the way liberal guys treated Sarah Palin was no abberration, because over a decade earlier, the same guys were calling Hillary a ‘ball buster’ and joining in when conservative guys lambasted her in unsubtly sexist ways.

  Unless you’re liberal with all women——not just the ‘good’ ones—-then you’re just a dewd with pretenses, no matter how cool your music collection is. Treating half the human race like they’re succubi, waiting for the right victim to oops, to entrap, to divorce, to steal the sperm of, is exactly how Baggers regard women.  Only when you talk about civil rights, maybe, or taxes, or health care, do they sound different then. Then it’s like night and day, but those things of course involve people—and nobody thinks women are people.

And PIATOR….yeah, good luck with that. That’ll happen.

Comment #44: ginmar  on  03/16  at  10:17 AM

I think that was PiaToR’s point, not much chance of that happening.

Comment #45: helen w. h.  on  03/16  at  11:24 AM

So you’re saying that the future of leftism in America depends on the voters being informed and engaged?

And your plan is have them locked up or lead by an oligarchy of intellectuals?  This is the same vain as “we can’t win because they’re too stupid to know the score!”  So?  Get out there and inform.  As America becomes more urban the need to spread the knowledge increases dramatically.  I work in what is effectively a college town now but I still ply my knowledge best I can to anybody willing to listen (outside of my own profession). 

As for…

Wow. Even after all this time, people are still arguing over which complete asshole that doesn’t give a shit about the American people would have been a less-bad president. Despite the fact that both assholes in question are in the same administration that is happily pushing a right-wing agenda that is causing suffering and death worldwide. Who needs Republicans when you have Democrats?

Just because Obama isn’t spouting marxism doesn’t make him a right-winger.  The collapse of the credit system hurts the average american more than any corporation.  They have overseas banks and other venues of credit to lend from, average american has the bank down the street and the national players.  Beyond that he socialized the car industry and handed over a huge chunk to the actual workforce (i.e. the unions).  I fail to see how McCain would have done anything similar.  The democrats are clearly farther left than the republicans and with the Republicans new face being Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck it lives a wide gap between them and the blue dogs of Altmire & the like.  In most cases the blue dogs are just socially conservative enough to annoy most equal rights groups but not a serious threat to the way of life to americans.  If the health care bill wasn’t being equated to death camps for the elderly the whole blue dog pack would have signed on months ago but they’re constituency is largely rural, white, and elderly.  They have little understanding and get most of their news from Fox. 

Everything I hear a “both sides do bad!” argument I just want to punch the arguer in the face.  Then I want them to explain their ideals of government, then if they fail to punch them again.

Comment #46: Xeranar  on  03/16  at  12:49 PM

Helen, I guess my sarcasm tag didn’t close.

  Xeranar, the ‘just’ Blue Dogs are quite enough to make abortion entirely illegal.

  Frankly, anybody who takes Sarah Palin seriously….shouldn’t there be a test done at that point and their car keys taken away?  It’s like the “and then people can marry horses!” kind of thing. Hello, at this point you’re just a lying asshole. You’re done. They have no shame, though, or no brains, so in the case they don’t care and in the other they don’t know and can’t be informed.

Comment #47: ginmar  on  03/16  at  04:30 PM

Yeah, this is pretty much just one group of morons getting mad at another group of morons for muscle-ing in on their moron turf. We may get some fun moron rumbles out of this but eventually a new balance of power will be reached, and it probably won’t involve the moron-o-caust.

Comment #48: atheist  on  03/16  at  04:37 PM

Unfortunately, they’re really going after libs, which is ironic, because so many libs are getting hamstringed by the fools in WAshington. Obama got elected by seeming to be a breath of fresh air. Turns out he’s just another gutless guy, talking about bipartisanship. Not too smart he doesn’t realise you can’t ‘bipartisan’ with these people.

Comment #49: ginmar  on  03/16  at  06:08 PM

And your plan is have them locked up or lead by an oligarchy of intellectuals?

Dude(tte), I don’t have a plan.  Apart from the minor inconsistency of not actually being in the country, political disengagement seems to be a rational response to a political system locked up by one party engaging in kabuki theatre between its two wings.

I’m sorry, there are actually two parties in Congress. Unfortunately, one of them appears to consist of Alan Grayson by himself.

Comment #50: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/16  at  06:14 PM

Comment #45: ginmar  on  03/16  at  08:17 AM
saying ‘two assholes’ is the ‘both sides are just as bad argument.’

Well, both sides are just as bad. Both will commit genocide and create domestic policies that kill people and cause suffering at home. This isn’t speculation or theory: they’re doing it right now. And do you really think that misogyny or racism against two privileged assholes is the really significant story of the last election? Howabout the fact that progressives lined up to take the media framing (the same media that happily reveled in hate on women and blacks) that the election came down to Clinton or Obama. Again, it doesn’t matter how they ran their races; what matters is that they were horrible candidates and so-called progressives were straight-up immoral for backing either.

Comment #47: Xeranar  on  03/16  at  10:49 AM
Just because Obama isn’t spouting marxism doesn’t make him a right-winger.

No, right-wing policies make him a right-winger. Thanks for the strawman.

The MSM and rightwingers are bigoted—we knew that. But saying that either of their targets in the last election was a “better” candidate than the other implies that they both weren’t pieces of walking filth, which is a plain and obvious lie better suited to a far-right site. This is the most moot argument there ever was.

Comment #47: Xeranar  on  03/16  at  10:49 AM
Everything I hear a “both sides do bad!” argument I just want to punch the arguer in the face.  Then I want them to explain their ideals of government, then if they fail to punch them again.

Every time I hear a “progressive” ignore genocide and war I want to commit far more violence than a simple punch to the face. Arrogantly dismissing war crimes in favor of concentrating on half-assed domestic policies is the favored sin of the day.

Comment #51: No One of Consequence  on  03/17  at  02:11 AM

Every time I hear a “progressive” ignore genocide and war I want to commit far more violence than a simple punch to the face. Arrogantly dismissing war crimes in favor of concentrating on half-assed domestic policies is the favored sin of the day.

Go look up the term progressive.  Go ahead, i’ll wait.  No where in the definition does it say anything about war or genocide.  As to the whole argument, if you’re talking about the numerous genocides in Africa, well what would have the US do?  If the UN is indifferent to it and the US is already locked into two struggles that most people don’t want to bother with it’s hard to ask a president to go about changing things.  I’m all for stopping genocides.  But that is because I am a decent human being. 

The MSM and rightwingers are bigoted—we knew that. But saying that either of their targets in the last election was a “better” candidate than the other implies that they both weren’t pieces of walking filth, which is a plain and obvious lie better suited to a far-right site. This is the most moot argument there ever was.

All Obama has done in terms of bailouts was use keynesian economic theory as best he could and got legislation past.  To call him right-wing is a bit much.  It is fairly clear he had options that didn’t involve loans and could have just handed over billions without any strings attached (as Bush would have gladly done under a republican congress.)  I think for you, maybe you need to start listening to the words and stop trying to strawman me.  You at best made me have to define the words so as to cut off your unfounded attacks. 

I want a more socialized country but that isn’t going to happen, so we need to work within the structure we’re given.

Comment #52: Xeranar  on  03/17  at  02:45 AM

Really, it’s shit like this from people on one’s alleged own side that makes me give up in disgust over everybody

Yes.  Go.  For I would not have you back again.

And blaming Hillary for Obama’s fellating the Republicans is not only inaccurate but just low and quite possibly sexist besides. Gee, blaming a woman for a man’s actions in sexual terms! Haven’t heard that before!

I said absolutely nothing even bearing a passing resemblance, either directly or by implication, to what is emphasized in the above quote.  It is entirely your own invention.  You are dishonest, decietful & utterly incapable of engaging in discourse in good faith.  & you’re parroting a very old sexist trope that oral sex is inherently degrading.

Comment #53: Smartpatrol  on  03/17  at  07:00 AM

From #52:

Every time I hear a “progressive” ignore genocide and war I want to commit far more violence than a simple punch to the face. Arrogantly dismissing war crimes in favor of concentrating on half-assed domestic policies is the favored sin of the day.

Your combination of self-righteous anger with idealism doesn’t impress me. You recognize that Obama’s administration sucks. Well, that’s good. That shows that you have eyes and a brain.

But your apparent failure to appreciate how much worse a McCain/Palin administration could have been suggests that you lack perspective. You claim that Obama is a “right-winger”. First, by the standards of the USA, you’re wrong. Second, suppose Obama were a right-winger. The question would then be, is this right-winger Obama calmer and more collected than the right-winger John McCain? Clearly the answer is yes.

And this right winger Obama, is he healthier than McCain? Less likely to drop dead suddenly? One would be forced to conclude, yes. And speaking of the president dropping dead, lets look at the two vice presidential candidates. On one hand, we have Joe Biden, a basically centrist, pro-railroad candidate with ties to the sleazy credit-card industry and a tendncy to speak his mind a little too frankly. And on the other, we have Sarah Palin, an idiot’s idiot who doesn’t know foreign policy from a hole in the ground, has flirted with ultra-fundamentalist Christianity, and believes women who claim they were raped should have to pay for their own rape kits. I know which of these people I would prefer to have leading an economically fragile hegemonic power engaged in two occupations and with the worlds’ largest cache of nuclear weapons. But you can think on it.

The question of how to alter US foreign policy from the current endlessly metastisizing state of war into something more sane and peaceful and rational is of great importance. I agree on that. And you’re right to point out that Obama has done only the barest minimum to start on this. But your perfectionist attitude seems useless in this situation where a vocal minority of the public sees commies under every bed and behind every tree, where the economy is fragile at best, where the business elements are doing their best to destroy the economy again, and where the public simply fails to see any of this.

Comment #54: atheist  on  03/17  at  08:11 AM

Like you have any standing whatsoever to talk about feminism, asshole. What are you doing on a feminist site? You’ve been carrying a grudge for five years in my case——over Steve Irwin? Really? REALLY?!  Your grudge against Hillary is ever so typical of so-called hipsters dewdz; you hate her for something that she didn’t do when you were about twenty, if not younger, and you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that she faced withering, blistering opposition and hatred——because that’s what you feel yourself for her.  I’m trying to keep my temper in check, but, really, assholes like you always claim it’s only one woman they hate. That’s your self-delusion, but I bet you make Ann Coulter jokes and think you’re oh-so-witty. 

Take it to email, you fuckwit.

Comment #55: ginmar  on  03/17  at  10:21 AM

I could point out that the Clinton(Hillary & Bill) strategy of ignoring the crazies in the hope that they’ll go away has been adopted by Obama w/ utterly predictable (& therefore perfectly avoidable) results.

Neither Clinton invented “ignoring the crazies”, let alone made Obama adopt it. Come to that, the 2008 primary season was all about how Hillary would never be able to work with the Republicans because she was so mean, nasty, divisive, etc. while Obama was going to overwhelm the GOP with his niceness, kindness, sheer awesomeness, etc. 

I could point out the goddamn obvious & draw attention to the fact that the the same cretin responsible for the “Hillary & Bill shot Vince Foster just to watch him die” nonsense was the same person then-Senator Clinton hired to run her campaign.

She invited Rush Limbaugh to run her campaign?  Because while there were a lot of GOP and GOP think tanks who spread the Vince Foster nonsense, I doubt any Dems were that dumb.  Care to enlighten us?

Comment #56: Blue Jean  on  03/17  at  02:30 PM

So. You’re a hipster dewd who apparently has a hardon for Steve Irwin’s corpse. And you hate Hillary. And me. But go ahead, you’re oh so reasonable.

Ginmar, consider yourself warned: STOP SENDING ME MESSAGES BY EMAIL.  Doing so & continuing to do so after one’s made it clear they have no desire to hear from you privately is the definition of online stalking.  I keep my comments re: you & your behaviour on here to keep the history of exchanges a matter of record.  DO NOT EMAIL ME PRIVATELY AGAIN.

I pointed out HRC’s abysmal failures as a politician & a policy maker, & you’re the one who came out of nowhere throwing temper tantrums, engaging in name-calling & accusing me of sexism.  I called you out on your abominable conduct & you’ve done nothing but more of the same since.  I mentioned your disgraceful posthumous smears against Steve Irwin because they reveal everything anyone needs to know to gauge the kind of bully & coward you are: SI probably meant less to you than to me, yet that failed to restrain you from gloating over his death & mocking his wife & children for losing a husband & father.

My Mom is a feminist.  My stepsister is a feminist.  My stepmother is a feminist.  My grandmother (Rest In Peace) was a feminist.  My last partner was & feminist & my next partner will be a feminist.  If I ever get married, it will be to a feminist.  If I ever have kids, they’re going to be feminists.  I know what feminism’s about because I know feminists.  You are not a feminist.  You’re a thug who uses it as a cudgel to browbeat into submission anyone who criticizes yourself or anyone you happen to like.  If you are a feminist, you make Michele Bachmann look like Susie Bright.  Or Phyllis Schlafly look like Betty Dodson.  Yes, I’ve problems w/ you.  You lie.  When you’re not impugning the motivations of everyone who isn’t ginmar or casting aspersions or making assumptions or setting up strawman arguments or engaging in immaterial ad homonym attacks, you’re either deliberately misconstruing or out-&-out lying about the content of the comments you’re responding to.  You lie.  You lie repeatedly & consistently.  You are incapable of engaging in discourse in good faith.  You add nothing to the discourse outside of repeated displays of a pathological need to assert dominance over each & every comment thread you post on.  Your conduct is the rhetorical equivalent of apes shitting in their hands & flinging it at passers-by, & you’ve done this so often & for so long & that there is at least one online community that’s been founded by others who’ve come under attack from your disgraceful, vitriolic & completely irrational behaviour (http://wiki.fandomwank.com/index.php/Ginmar).  & you still parroted the old sexist trope that oral sex is inherently degrading.  Own it.

These people perceive themselves as righteous, honest, honourable, and under siege.  They build their self image on that. Fuck with that and it’s like backing a rat into a corner. They’re mean, they’re nasty, and what they’ll do in public is nothing compared to what they’ll do in private—-where there aren’t any witnesses.  Takes one to know some. 

Last Warning: STOP SENDING ME MESSAGES BY EMAIL.  DO NOT EMAIL ME PRIVATELY AGAIN .  Full stop.  Message Ends.  We’re done.

</commenting here.>

Comment #57: Smartpatrol  on  03/17  at  02:44 PM

I haven’t emailed you, you git. It’s called an LJ message.  You’re not the wronged party here, you asshole.  If you want to harass me, I’ll respond however I feel like, especially seeing as how you’re citing a group that has repeatedly accused me of shit I didn’t say, or willfully ignored what I did say to put forth something that sounds so much better. Or worse. I also love the way they ignore context and call it wank, for example, when they cause wank by sending dozens of people to harass me. 

Here’s what I wrote about Steve Irwin.

You know, I hate to see anybody die by accident, but Steve Irwin was not some guy who gets a lot of affection from me. He left behind a wife and two kids. He ‘loved’ animals in the same way he loved his kids——playing with an alligator while holding his baby son is not the act of somebody who loves his kids.  I’ve heard too many sexist guys who said they loved women to be too impressed by somebody who says they love something animate, becuase when you think about it, it’s only inanimate objects that can be identical as a group, within a reasonable certainty.  I didn’t much care for the way he tossed and taunted animals around, and I’ve got no patience with guys who have families and little kids but neverhteless do dangerous stuff out because they have A Quest or something.  Where’s his family now, huh? Who’s going to support them—-and not just financially? Did he even support his family or was it vice versa? Note, too, I’m not talking about finances here.  How come guys are allowed to <i>combine work and family in ways that no woman can even imagine, and yet when the inevitable happens and some guy dies on Everest or in the sea or doing something stupid, it’s heroic, whereas if it were a woman, he’d be seen as selfish? 

  I’m sorry he died, but I’m sorrier for his family.  He owed them more.  He owed them a father and a husband.</i>

  Yeah, that’s….kicking the corpse all right. 

  Unless you grow up and stop this, I’ll contact you however much I want, as long as you’re harassing me. You have ‘feminist friends’? Really? Do you have black friends, too? Your obsession and hatred for me over Steve Irwin is kind of….illuminating. Reading what you say about me is kind of like reading any rightwinger talk about liberals.  You leave out enough to make your case, and then get offended when I get offended. Oh, and your Hillary hate is no isolated thing.

Now go off and tattle to Fandom_wank! I’m sure they’ll be delighted that that crazy bitch is at it again. I can hardly wait to see how they edit this one.

Comment #58: ginmar  on  03/17  at  05:58 PM

Oh, and oral sex? Really? TWISTY said something like that and it aroused a huge shitstorm, but I never have.  So either you’re lying or stupid. Which is it?

Comment #59: ginmar  on  03/17  at  05:59 PM

And…F_W was founded by people who were harased by me? REALLY? That community was around long before I was, and they’ve consistently misrepresented what I say—-except in a few highly specific instances where they pluck one sentence out of somewhere and brush the rest——usually five or six thousand words—-away. 

I never said anything about oral sex.  So that’s two times you’ve either been willfully, maliciously stupid, or untruthful and that’s in addition to the ‘TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE’ Pee Wee Herman-esque retorts.

  Given your fat hate and issues with Hillary—-she hired Rush Limbaugh, huh? And she’s to blame for an adult male President acting in a way that she never acted?——-I suspect that something’s going on in the hipsterverse to cause this kind of reaction.  It reminds me of that comment you made in one of the fat discussion threads, where you freaked out, dare I say, hysterically, while you did another one of your wild linky things about how this, that, and the other thing—-sprinkled through with those tedious &s;that you use to such excess—-while dismissing the notion that fat people could be healthy. It was a myth, you shreiked, while boasting about your own weight loss. How much better you felt. Judging by here…not much.

Anyhoodle, trying to get back to the subject, over at Crooks and Liars they had news about the pathetic turnouts for the last few Bagger events, and it makes you wonder: How much of an inarticulate and resentful population do these guys represent? That base gets pandered to by Faux, but if it stopped being profitable, would they switch allegiances——meaning Faux? Their differences aside, they want to seem relevant and dominant. Covering them as if they were, though, means keeping the population ignorant because real news isn’t being covered. Whatever their numbers, they’re being given attention they don’t in any way deserve. So how do we fight these assholes?

Comment #60: ginmar  on  03/17  at  06:40 PM

Me, I think we start by figuring out how to rebuild what used to be the strong identity between the American left and working people. Of course, in order to do that, we need there to be an American left big enough to matter, so we’re probably screwed; what’s left of the American left gave up on the people I grew up with a long time ago. Much as I’d like to, I can’t entirely blame them; if we weren’t so hard to live with, I’d never have felt the need to leave Mississippi in the first place. But if the left had kept with the propaganda and working-with-the-filthy-proletariat instead of leaving it to the God damned right wing to do, then I think maybe the problem would’ve stopped with just ignorance and then even maybe gotten better, instead of being inflamed and scarified over decades into this hugely twisted mass of envious resentment and hatred and bile.

But, hell, that’s just crazy talk.

Smartpatrol, you poor thing, is that nasty ginmar being mean to you?

Comment #61: Aaron  on  03/17  at  08:49 PM

Yeah, I don’t know if that’s even possible, Aaron, given the way the Repubs have dominated that discourse. It’s funny….the Connecticut Bushies are these models of authenticity, supposedly, but they bought ranches in Texas. Didn’t Reagan, too? And he was as fake as they come. The Repubs sell the dream to the proles—-that white guys are all poor, downtrodden schlubs who work hard for nothing, that all women are harpies, the dark-skinned aliens want our jobs and our welfare, and all sorts of nasty, ugly stuff that people ought to be ashamed of for entertaining. But it works. They sold their souls to the Religious Right and in the process, any lie became okay. Now the Right—-the party that fought all those workforce laws that codified humane treatment of workers, they’re somehow the party of the Workin’ Man, even though they’re still doing it!

Comment #62: ginmar  on  03/17  at  10:28 PM

Comment #53: Xeranar  on  03/17  at  12:45 AM
Go look up the term progressive.  Go ahead, i’ll wait.  No where in the definition does it say anything about war or genocide.

Nor does the legal definition of theft include mention of murder, but guess what—if you kill someone and steal their property long afterwards, you can still be charged with the latter conversion. Snide fail.

If you don’t see the right to exist as a basic human right and don’t see basic human rights as being a value within progressive ideology, you are indulging in self-delusion greater than that of the rigthwingers you may criticize. I can’t call it stupidity—nobody is that incredibly stupid.

As to the whole argument, if you’re talking about the numerous genocides in Africa, well what would have the US do?

Um, WTF are you talking about?! The U.S. is embroiled in over two wars and the only acts of mass murder you can come up with are those that (you seem to be implying) the U.S. has nothing to do with?! Are you really that blinkered or are you deliberately avoiding facts to support your point?

. . .I am a decent human being. 

. . . who is cool with all those Iraqis being raped and murdered and driven out of their homes, is cool with the same happening in Afghanistan, is cool with the war spreading into Pakistan—yeah, at this point the term “decent” hasn’t merely ceased to have meaning but is clearly intended to imply the opposite.

All Obama has done in terms of bailouts was use keynesian economic theory as best he could and got legislation past. To call him right-wing is a bit much.

Obama not merely protected Bush’s criminal aides from prosecution but affirmed their far-right policies and took them as his own—torture, rendition, etc. So your definition of “far-right” ignores policies a person actually enacts. Again, this is so fallacious I don’t know where to begin.

I think for you, maybe you need to start listening to the words and stop trying to strawman me.

You mean like pretending I was speaking exclusively about certain economic policies that I never brought up and then attacking my completely unstated positions on said policies? You could teach me a thing or two about strawman arguments.

You at best made me have to define the words so as to cut off your unfounded attacks. 

You have defined nothing and, in fact, have employed obfuscation in order to mischaracterize your favored candidate.

Comment #63: No One of Consequence  on  03/18  at  07:47 AM

Comment #55: atheist  on  03/17  at  06:11 AM
Your combination of self-righteous anger with idealism doesn’t impress me.

In contrast, your use of snideness in lieu of logic or reason is more disappointing than unimpressive.

But your apparent failure to appreciate how much worse a McCain/Palin administration could have been suggests that you lack perspective.

Do tell. Oh, wait, first you have to point out where I was complaining that McCain would have been a better choice than Obama in absolute terms. Go and look. That’s right—that claim only exists in your head, along with your projection that I have misapprehended reality.

First, by the standards of the USA, you’re wrong.

Well, that’s bullshit. The U.S. MSM features a rubric of determining political alignment that is objectively wrong—you’d think someone on this site would be savvy to that. The goalposts on what is “right” and “left” have been rapidly moved since the Nixon administration—y’know, the first administration to actually propose universal healthcare and the first administration to employ drug treatment instead of simple incarceration in response to drug abuse epidemics. Nixon was, of course, a right-wing president, but policies that were once considered moderate have been pushed to one side or the other purposefully by vested interests—and they can be pushed back at whim. See also “States Rights” before, and after, Bush the Second came into office.

So ignoring the MSM framing of political policy, right-wing applies to a great number of politicians on the “left.” In fact, what is called the “left” is really “everybody else that isn’t on the right regardless of their substantive political positions.”

Second, suppose Obama were a right-winger. The question would then be, is this right-winger Obama calmer and more collected than the right-winger John McCain?

Who the hell cares? Why would I want a right-winger to be MORE calm and collected?! Why would I want a guy who’s goal it is to send me or my friends and family off to pointless wars/raise our taxes/restrict our access to healthcare/block our attempts to unionize/push our tax dollars to their friends—why would I want that guy to be more capable? This is inane. I never mentioned McCain, but the commentor seems to be giving reasons why he’d be a better president than Obama.

But your perfectionist attitude—

Um, I’m not asking for perfection. You’re lying about what the “good” is and claiming I’m asking for perfection. I made no claims about Obama vis-a-vis McCain on this page, but you made some up as strawmen containg such comparisons because, I suppose, that was easier than judging Obama by the content of his character.

Comment #64: No One of Consequence  on  03/18  at  07:56 AM

They sold their souls to the Religious Right…

...and why not? My tribe’s political favors have been up for sale ever since sainted old George Washington rolled out the barrels of rum, and after the Civil Rights movement, the American left was no longer buying—made it quite clear, in fact, that we were persona non grata as a group; the American left, or what’s left of it, has wanted nothing to do with us for at least forty years.

So yeah, my people by and large have put their souls in hock to the religious right, because at least the religious right is willing to pretend it respects us, willing to throw us a half-gnawed bone once in a while and let us keep our pride, in exchange for nothing more than our votes and our willingness to make noise behind scurrilous lies about decent people who, had the left not abandoned us to the tender mercies of the worst scum this nation has to offer, we’d know we have common cause with.

And so what if our souls are in hock? It’s not a permanent condition. And we could even have in this country, on this day, a leftist movement helping my people get themselves back out of the God damned Republican pawn shop, helping us get our fucking jobs back so that we can feel like we’ve got a stake in this society and a thing to be proud of—simple-minded as it may seem to y’all with the $50 haircuts, to somebody who’s never hoped to go to college and never had an option in life but to work for a living and not have one, being able to work for a living, having that willingness to work ourselves to death mean something, that counts for a hell of a lot. There could be a leftist movement of people who aren’t fucking allergic to dirt and hard work, day in and day out for a lifetime; living that kind of life actually does tend to put people on the side of labor, and for all you ignorant fucking liberals who’ve forgotten this, labor has always been the heart and soul of the left, wherever the left has existed in any way that mattered.

And maybe if that had been the way of things for the last few decades—well, I can’t say for sure that the former Southern Democrats would not still have gained power over my people’s souls, but at least they couldn’t have done it unopposed. Speaking of which, some leftists who aren’t fucking allergic to God would be a good start, too; silly as y’all might find the whole idea, it means a lot to a lot of people down south, and where better to put the message across than in the pulpit on Sunday morning? That’s where it used to come from—hell, even Glenn fucking Beck is smart enough to pick up on that one, or hadn’t it occurred to you to wonder where this whole opposition to social justice in churches is coming from? Christ almighty, if Glenn fucking Beck is not just so much more effective, but also this much smarter and more on-the-ball, than that which pleases itself to be known as “the American left”—sorry, y’all, we really are fucked, and Satan will continue to hold sway over the hearts and minds of my people until the right wing finally collapses under the weight of its own bloated carcass.

Comment #65: Aaron  on  03/18  at  10:11 AM

The problem with that if that you’re leaving out part of the bargain: the RR specifically made hatred part of the soul deal. Vote for us, went the siren song, and we’ll blame the black people and the women and the immigrants for taking your jobs even while we reward our rich white buddies for dumping your jobs overseas. The idea that the righties are the champions of the working class is so stupid that you hvae to wonder at people who sell it but also at the people who buy it. The right has opposed everything that makes working humane in the US, and when those protections made it impossible for other rich white men to make obscene and fast profits, they let them do all sorts of scummy things to make those profits elsewhere. It’s like they expect to get caught, isn’t it? Everyhting’s about quick profits, about making the stockholders happy, no matter what, and the bigotry makes the hoi polloi happy, because it’s what they hide behind while they blame the very people who are trying to protect them.

  I don’t believe anybody’s that stupid,  so what are you left with?

Comment #66: ginmar  on  03/18  at  12:24 PM

Comment #66: Aaron  on  03/18  at  08:11 AM
There could be a leftist movement of people who aren’t fucking allergic to dirt and hard work, day in and day out for a lifetime; living that kind of life actually does tend to put people on the side of labor, and for all you ignorant fucking liberals who’ve forgotten this, labor has always been the heart and soul of the left, wherever the left has existed in any way that mattered.

White Democrats who jumped ship for the Republicans began doing so BEFORE MLK was assassinated—and MLK was assassinated while supporting striking garbagemen—that is, he was assassinated while organizing labor of all colors.

In addition, the Democrats were still ostensibly pro-labor while the Republican party soaked up every sheet-wearing shite they could get their hands on.

The far right is, of course, playing on the very real injury that poor whites suffer. And it benefits from the deliberate neglect of more powerful Democrats—who also deliberately neglect blacks and the poor, so you can shove even the implication of special treatment or favor by Dems on that score up the most convenient orifice you have available. But if you think that the rightwing only exists because of that injury, well, that’s a fucking lie. It is absolutely certain that people could be pulled from the far right if there were a truly liberal major party. It is absolutely certain that there are people on the right who are there because they have absolutely no idea what’s going on and, as such, really can’t take a political position of any moral significance. However, there could be no popular right wing movement at all but for bigotry, and so long as there is bigotry there will be a right wing. Racism is both necessary and sufficient for the existence of the far right in the U.S.

Comment #67: No One of Consequence  on  03/18  at  02:39 PM

Rumpelstiltskin could make a fortune outta this thread - what with all that straw being available for spinning to gold.

Comment #68: LittlePig  on  03/18  at  06:44 PM

Wow.  I am with LittlePig (#69) on that. 

Someone is still nursing a whopper of a grudge over the primary.

Amanda’s analysis is spot on.  The Ayn Rand/Jesus marriage may be strained, but will remain intact because of their mutual fondness for hating “the other” and feeling special.  The Randers identify with John Galt and feel that they are special and uniquely talented and everyone else is a bunch of disgusting brown garbage that only exists to be punished and looked down upon (ah the thrill of hating the useless dumbshit masses).  The Jesusers feel similar contempt and loathing for the lowly, dirty, sinning non-white, non-male rabble.  They may hate them for different reasons, but they are still bound by mutual hate.

Comment #69: Weezie Jefferson  on  03/19  at  12:28 PM

God, what would the first song be at that wedding?

Comment #70: ginmar  on  03/19  at  03:42 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.