Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
`
Edward, Edward, Edward, "There you go again!" (Ronnie Rayguns, in a debate.)
There's no way I'll invest all the time required to debunk every detail of your hyperbole. This is getting repetitive. (Getting?!!)
Just a few corrections. Most of what I could say I've linked to supporting articles, in my previous reply to Conrad. I'll focus on some of your glaring (and popular, I've been reading the same sources you get your stuff from) statements of known non-fact:
Red Herring. Not gonna happen, pretending it will is just hyperbole. The Obamanator has a lock, unless he totally blows it, which is unlikely. Wednesday night was a wake-up call for his campaign. Assuredly they are taking great measures to make sure it won't happen again.
Ron Paul Sucks!
So we all own our vote? Was that in dispute? You're the one slinging the "Vote Swapping" nonsense. Nothing I've said is an order to others about what to do. You're the one who uses that imperative tone.
I dubbed the pres, The Obamanator, after the OBL hit. It's a combination of praise, affectionate sobriquet, gesture to his anti-war critics, of which I am a mediated one, and a joke.
I imagine him wearing a Mexican wrestling mask as he battles Evil as a Luchadoro! The fact it sets some his admirers off is a nice inadvertent litmus test to see who suffers from Irony Impairment. I suggest you see someone for that.
I discuss these matters with many ardent Democrats, very few take umbrage with my nicknames for the two protagonists in our "great contest". I find that those who do, are bearing large chips of resentment on their shoulders. Not my problem.
I give him credit for that all the time. And take shit from totalizing and reductive critics on the Left and among the Paul-tards for supposedly justifying "Statism" and all that really bad, horrible stuff caused by Capitalism. I am not an extremist, in spite of KTK's delusional interpretations stemming from her poor reading skills and ideological blinders.
I also read Paul Krugman and agree that the stimulus for infrastructure and jobs was too little. He had two years with a Democratic majority House and Senate. So pinning it on the Policy-Blocking Teabaggers is specious. 2/09-10/10? I know he was busy, but the economy was priority #1.
His caution, hurt far more than his reputation. It had a role in the lack of job growth for the last three and a half years. Listening to Geithner et al, is probably why he was so timid about, "bailing out Main Street".
Of course the president, let alone anybody else, doesn't "Run" the economy. He didn't create the crisis, although his party played a central role. He did have the responsibility to respond to it.
I supported the Financial Market bailouts. Because the alternative was a global economic collapse Hell-Scape that would have made The Great Depression look like a nice time for family fun. He didn't go far enough, when he had the chance.
It's that two-edged sword of his wonky, mediating, cautious personality. He talks about bold steps, his steps tell another story.
By the way, none of this is 20/20 hindsight. His friends and supporters were shouting the same things at every turn. It's not like anybody didn't know.
He's guided by NeoLiberal economic views (as well as NeoLiberal geostrategy) and in that light, his every move makes perfect sense. Too bad it's a recipe for Empire and Mass Impoverishment. It's certainly not a way to work for Social Justice.
Utter Hogwash. The deadline was set by Bush II. Democrats were all over the invasions. The Obamanator made great efforts to extend the Iraq occupation and keep U.S. troops there. The Iraqi government refused to extend legal immunity for U.S. Forces. In spite of Hillary working very hard to make that happen. So The Obamanator was forced to comply with the deadline.
There are tons of "contractors" still in Iraq and massive expenditures of U.S. tax dollars. He took credit for something he tried his utmost to prevent, "ending" The War on/in Iraq. That war continues by other means. His uncritical thinking followers tout it as a win, led by his spinners. His best spinner is himself.
I'm glad we "withdrew". But misrepresenting the history is the sign of the worst sort of ideological bias.
As for The Afghan, one word. Surge.
Wars raging in general? Drones.
I'm a heretic on Libya. It had to be done. The alternatives were far worse.
More broadsides of hyperbolic, misrepresentative, obtuse, demonizing, insulting, B.S. Known Modus Operandi. Does not require a refutation, since it has nothing to do with why people aren't thrilled by our, "Great Leader".
By the way, Spell Check is your friend.
Agreed. Although, Stuff's Complicated. The question of Reform vs. Revolution is an old and knotty one. Still being discussed, as I suspect it always will be. I've plenty to say about it, but I'll spare everyone.
As for the rest of your diatribe, "asserting facts not in question", or some such thing lawyers say.
How to make substantial political change is a complex topic. One I've already said plenty about to you personally and here on waccobb. I'll leave that aside, except to say -
Attacking those who agree with most of your goals, but have a different take on the situation we all face, and who are making sincere efforts to do what they think is worth doing, in many different ways, on many different "fronts", is not an effective way to organize social movement.
A key part of doing that, creating movement, is coalition building, seeking practical grounds on which to work together, without demanding complete agreement on everything.
Attacking those who are doing things you disagree with, yet things which have no affect whatsoever on how you are seeking your goals (Of course, this is the crux of our dispute. Asked and answered. You're wrong, I'm right!! ;~P) is not conducive to cooperation, or coordination in a coalition. It achieves nothing. Except to polarize, alienate and engender rejection. Pumping up the conflict, what's the goal?
That's not organizing, that's wrecking. Plenty do it. It's an old, old, story. Especially on The Left.
Active Force, being blocked by Reactive Force.
Peace Out, as we used to say, not so many years ago,
`