chlamor wrote:lightningBugout wrote:chlamor wrote:
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.