the ill-tempered cavalier ([info]gillen) wrote,
@ 2006-05-11 18:38:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, in an interview yesterday with the Christian Broadcasting Network, insisted, "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says." Reached for comment, the 2004 Democratic Party Platform responded, "uh... waitaminute, what??"
(thanks to [info]tsenft for the find)

A fundraising dinner for the reelection campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful and early frontrunner New York Senator Hillary Clinton is to be organized by FOX News and New York Post owner, Rupert Murdoch.

I'm sorry, is there anyone out there who still doesnt get it? The Democratic and Republican parties are parity products from the same manufacturer marketed to different demographics.

(Post a new comment)


[info]laocius
2006-05-12 02:37 am UTC (link)
And here I thought they were parody products

(Reply to this)


[info]laocius
2006-05-12 02:37 am UTC (link)
You thought of it, but you didn't take it. Somebody had to.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gillen
2006-05-12 02:50 am UTC (link)
I leave them around for others to find... brain droppings. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]pirat_ponton
2006-05-12 02:57 am UTC (link)
OK, so which third party in congress is going to help us out of today's news?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gillen
2006-05-12 03:07 am UTC (link)
Maybe we could petition the UN for occupation and regime change.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]pirat_ponton
2006-05-12 03:11 am UTC (link)
and let russia and china fight over us?

I'm serious - not that the one-party-system is news to me, but I had been thinking there were at least a few dems that might save the party - obviously now, I am in no way convinced of that - so WTF do we do, here?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gillen
2006-05-12 03:18 am UTC (link)
The only solution that can result in meaningful change is the only one which it is illegal to advocate.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]pirat_ponton
2006-05-12 04:49 am UTC (link)
birth control??!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gillen
2006-05-12 04:51 am UTC (link)
Heh. In a manner of speaking. It generally involves some degree of retroactive abortion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
How bout this?
[info]meepeek
2006-05-12 07:23 pm UTC (link)
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - T. Jefferson

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: How bout this?
[info]gillen
2006-05-14 03:13 am UTC (link)
Well, I'm all for rebelling aginst this government at any rate, but I must admit that a properly constituted one I would see shielded from such appeals.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ghostwes
2006-05-12 05:50 am UTC (link)
"The Democratic and Republican parties are parity products from the same manufacturer marketed to different demographics."

I find this is usually more obvious to those outside of the US.

Coke or Pepsi, which would you prefer?

(Reply to this)


[info]grendel001
2006-05-12 05:52 am UTC (link)
i'm with you up to a point. if gore came out on top in 2000 there would most likely have been no 9/11 and certainly no iraq. he would have been hogtied to any sort of real change as far as fuel efficiently goes. but yes, there would be a difference. i'm as put out as anyone as far as the state of the country and the two parties. slate does a blog round up every day which is nothing more than pathetic partisan sniping. its sad, it really is.

but to say that there really is no tangible difference between bush and kerry/h. clinton is smug and wrong.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gillen
2006-05-12 06:30 am UTC (link)
if gore came out on top in 2000

What do you mean 'if'?

there would most likely have been no 9/11 and certainly no iraq.

Okay, but that's simply a matter of what their narrative is. Gore and the 'War on Terror' wouldn't work. He's not macho enough and he's perceived as bright and so would be expected to have more diplomatic solutions. The whole sell would have been different. So, he's perceived as enviro... biohazards maybe? Push SARS, Mad Cow and the Bird Flu harder, maybe release something in a population center. It all ends up in the same place, it just takes a different path. I agree that the Gore path would have been more touchy-feely though. Less overtly intentional death, more tragedy with an 'Earth in the imbalance' sales pitch. Or who knows, they could still hve pressed the whole Muslim extremism angl. With Lieberman in the mix it could have played true.

and the two parties.

The what?

slate does a blog round up every day which is nothing more than pathetic partisan sniping.

Slate is Microsoft and that's the narrative they're pushing.

but to say that there really is no tangible difference between bush and kerry/h. clinton is smug and wrong.

Or perhaps it means that what you see as differences I find to be strictly surface. 9/11 was a very successful sales campaign. Not an event meaningful in itself, but the dramatic introduction of a cultural meme to redirect the narrative. 3000 people die and the world changes, millions die from a tsunami and barely anyone remembers it. Why? Because one was stage-managed. From the first plane hitting the towers, on network to network the programming of a new narrative had begun, the dramatic rollout of America's brand new season, with a fresh new enemy to replace the last season's highly-rated commies. Introducing the omnipresent, industrious, sneaky, dark and swarthy 'Terrists', with Osama Bin Laden the Emmanuel Goldstein of our time.

Sure, under Gore/Lieberman it would have been a different narrative to match the style of the leadership, but it was never going to be Gore. Just like it was never going to be Kerry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]carlmarks
2006-05-12 01:06 pm UTC (link)
It's hardly fair to compare a natural disaster for which nobody is at fault* to a deliberate attack by people hell-bent on causing murder, destruction, and terror. An accidental car crash and a violent homicide aren't the same thing, even if the effects are the same. It's also true that when a single person in your family dies peacefully at the age of 103, it hurts more then when a hundred African children starve to death. This is simple human nature. The first noteworthy attack on the American mainland since 1812 is sure to raise eyebrows.

The fact that the Bush Administration used the attacks to their political advantage doesn't mean they carried them out. We're not dealing with the Illuminati here, we're dealing with a bunch of incompetents who through negligence and buffoonery allowed men who genuinely do loathe the United States and wish to destroy it to hijack four planes and use them as guided missiles. When he heard about it, Karl Rove did not go to Bush and say, "Excellent news, master, Phase One has been completed according to plan," he said "Bad news. You fucked up. But this is how we're going to spin it... put the book about the goat down and listen, retard." The idea that the Administration is evil and manipulative is not incompatible with the idea that Osama bin Laden is also evil. On the contrary, I think there are plenty of examples to make it clear that Bush is incompetent rather than a criminal mastermind, such as, say, the fact that he's now the most widely hated sitting president since Nixon.

If Gore had been elected appointed President, 9/11 might have been averted, not because Gore would have called Osama up and said, "Sorry, OBL, we decided to make the chicken with the hacking cough the bad guy this time - but hey, there's always 2004," but rather because he's a better manager who wouldn't have torn up and farted upon Clinton's warnings about bin Laden out of spite. Yes, he still would have manipulated the media and the public. That's - well, it's not his job, but it's what people who have the job do.

Yes, the Democrats and Republicans are beholden to many of the same interests, due to the nature of party funding, but if you look at the numbers, there are differences. The tobacco companies don't throw money at every politician equally, and FOX News doesn't treat Hillary Clinton the same way it treats George Bush. Perhaps, rather than seeing shadows that simply aren't there, it would be more logical to assume that the centralization of the two parties is exactly what it looks like - Howard Dean is claiming that marriage is between a man and a woman because the polls say that if the Democrats need to try appealing to people outside their urban base, and this is Dean's idea of playing to Peoria. Occam's Razor is seriously against you here, Mr Gillen.


*except for feminists, sodomites, and people who wear white after Labor Day

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gillen
2006-05-12 02:32 pm UTC (link)
] It's hardly fair to compare a natural disaster for which nobody is at fault* to a deliberate attack

Only if you find the presence of intent to be a meaningful filter through which to view effect.

] The first noteworthy attack on the American mainland since 1812 is sure to raise eyebrows.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with Japanese balloon bombs. ;) Besides, this also has little to do with external forces, but I suspect we disagree on that.

]The fact that the Bush Administration used the attacks to their political advantage doesn't mean they carried them out.

I think we can both agree that the Bush Administration certainly didn't carry out the 9-11 attacks (I'll hold out for instigated, planned, and set-up, but I'll grant you that Bush's shitty piloting wasn't to blame.)

]When he heard about it, Karl Rove did not go to Bush and say, "Excellent news, master, Phase One has been completed according to plan,"

Not if by Bush you mean the sitting president, at any rate.

]put the book about the goat down and listen, retard

Someone probably should have told him that. As it was, he didn't put the book about the goat down. Understandable. It was probably more engrossing. Daddy's friends can be scary at times.

]I think there are plenty of examples to make it clear that Bush is incompetent rather than a criminal mastermind

Claiming that members of his Adminisration had a hand in bringing about 9/11 is somewhat different from claiming that he did. If they needed a bunch of muslim fanatics to get drunk and go AWOL, Dubbya might have been the man for the job. Otherwise, best to leave it to people who don't have to mutter nursery rhymes when they tie their shoes.

If Gore had been elected appointed President [...]</i>

If Gore had been tapped he would have done what other Presidents do, stand and look pretty for the camera until their handlers tell them what to do next. About 50% of the time the guy topside is solely a placeholder, and that's *certainly* what Gore would have been and what Dubbya is.

]Occam's Razor is seriously against you here, Mr Gillen.

Surely you jest. Cui Bono is the closest shave that you're likely to get.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]carlmarks
2006-05-12 06:45 pm UTC (link)
I view the presence of intent to be meaningful to the effect on the American people. After a lightning bolt kills your wife, you don't go to the Godfather and say "I will do anything you ask if you just mess up the motherfucker who did this." If nothing else, the Don will say, "Dude, I'm Catholic. I don't mess with God." The American people's proverbial wife wasn't hit by a lightning bolt, she was savagely killed by a crazed madman whose intentions they didn't - and didn't want to - understand. They went to their Godfather and said, "Fuck the bastard up." And Don Busccio said "Sure thing. But you'll owe me a favor." And America said, "Sure thing. Here are my phone records and my grandchild's Social Security benefits."

The entire administration is incompetent - the only one who's any good as his job, as far as I call tell, is Rove. I don't think Bush is as much the figurehead as he's said to be, but I'll accept the possibility. If you want, reread my previous comment, but wherever I say "Bush", read "people acting in Bush's name". It doesn't change anything. No member of the Administration called up the hijackers and say, "Hey guys, what are you doing Tuesday?" The grievances that al-Qaeda et al-al have against the United States are very old and very heartfelt ones. They didn't need anybody to tell them it was okay to blow up some buildings, they just fucking did it. The US government had nothing to do with it - they antagonized the Arab world, they ignored the threat, but I honestly don't believe Bush, Cheney, Rove, or even PFC Wintergreen ever so much as said "Gee, I wish those guys would blow up some buildings."

9/11 happened. They used it to their advantage. In that order.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gillen
2006-05-14 03:24 am UTC (link)
The behaviour of people is as natural a force as lightning, though a good bit more predictable and, one might suggest, often less deliberate.

As to the rest, there are two positions one may take with regard to those with whom one disagrees - they are either evil or stupid. Clearly we have not chosen the same with regard to this Administration. I will only suggest that it was careless of you to select yours, and not characterize it further.

However, I have little doubt that the 9-11 attacks were planned (and assisted) by Americans on American soil.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]hairyfigment
2006-05-12 09:52 pm UTC (link)
Unless the theory requires you to postulate a widespread mental state that would remove the need for a conscious conspiracy. To pick one small example, if the rest of the government could have missed an organized US government conspiracy to bring about 9/11, they could also have missed the more well-established al-Qaeda plan.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gillen
2006-05-14 03:32 am UTC (link)
Given that I believe they are aspects of the same plan, I have no doubt of it. However, I don't hold with the old saw that the number of people necessary to participate in such conspiracy would prevent its practicality. For something of this scale you'd need at most 20 or so who have any real idea of what they are doing or why - and to get rid of maybe twice as many who would be in a position afterwards to put together enough pieces to come close to unmasking it. The execution of power is all about conspiracies. We govern by conspiracy. It would be impossible for government to fucntion without conspiracy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]neraulia
2006-05-13 11:39 am UTC (link)
There's a nursery rhyme for tying shoes? O frabjous day! No more velcro for this blogger.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gillen
2006-05-14 03:33 am UTC (link)
Worse, he mutters a completely unrelated one. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]reverend_s
2006-05-13 01:46 am UTC (link)
I'd comment on this, but I haven't had the greatest of days, and I'm afraid where I'll end up if I start pumping up a head of steam right this minute.

But I will say this; there better be a revolution in one form or another, and fucking soon.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gillen
2006-05-13 01:49 am UTC (link)
I may be in the choir, but that don't mean I don't enjoy hearing you preach it, reverend. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…