My Photo

From the
Fascist's Mouth

What I'm Reading

Answers

« DNC to PAC's, Lobbyists: "No Thanks!" | Main | McCain: Too Old to Lead? »

Comments

Janny_banned_from_Nora's_site_Mae

Devon, you need to read more. Then you'll know how to write plurals.

Posted by: okaydokay

Do you feel superior now? I know you have such a strong need to, after all....

You need to read up on internet trolls, because calling attention to someone's writing mistakes in lieu of addressing their argument is a typical troll tactic.

kb

imstillwhiningandstillhaven'treadabook said:

"Dear God .... yet another lengthy KB rant ..."

Dear God.... yet another short, empty, meaningless, blurb. (Perhaps he'll get to something eventually. Let's see....)

"Must .. not .. feed .. the .. trolls .."

If you'd quit giving me so much to eat up perhaps I wouldn't. You folks just keep handing out faster than I can eat it. By the way, where is the evidence for trolling? I said something in all of my comments. You haven't. I'd consider that simply taking up space, i.e., trolling.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~doucheforears said:

"If a certain Black Messiah Candidate For President (who will go unnamed) asks for "crackers" for his soup, then would that not be cannibalism and disqualify him from running?"

Probably not. But you can sure bet that the always-seeing-things-that-aren't-there right would interpret this to be a racist, oh, I mean, "reverse racist", statement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fannyspraystealinglinesfroma"lefty" said:


Do you feel superior now? I know you have such a strong need to, after all....

"You need to read up on internet trolls, because calling attention to someone's writing mistakes in lieu of addressing their argument is a typical troll tactic."

Odd that you mention this as it's an almost exact paraphrase of a response left by me in reference to you having done the same thing. And you and the other droolers from the right here have exactly NO right or reason to be demanding "addressing the argument" from others as NOT doing so is one of what makes you a part of the drooling right which you are. But perhaps I've jumped the gun a little. Let's see how the facts play themselves out. Yesterday I made about a dozen comments which could be argued either for or against, and yet I have seen no arguments, but rather a charge of my being a troll from incapacitatedinbredllectual. Hmmm.........And yet another glaringly obvious example of projection, lying, hypocrisy, and the usual host of other adjectives which unfortunately the right seems to try and chalk up as if they are good points. I really feel sorry for you folks. Infants trapped in adults bodies.


FrillyThongOfFascistOppression

Let us never forget that the apparent demise of "anti-Americanism" as a respectable means of stifling recognition of American imperialism provides a pretext for the end of any possibility of social justice in a reactionary state. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Pax Americana of the future represents the crushing of internal dissent in order to propagate the theocrat Ashcroft's suspension of our civil rights. On the other hand, the pro-Sharon neoconservative cabal belies justifications given by the world's leading apologists for the police state which has come to pass. Clearly, the American state, with its unelected president, venal Supreme Court, silent Congress, gutted Bill of Rights and compliant media brings about the essential Western imperial interests. As Norman Mailer pointed out, the appropriation of Arab resources represents the repudiation of international law in order to bring about the theocrat Ashcroft's suspension of our civil rights. It appears that Americanism as an ideology brings about an act of international violence that exceeds even those of the "liberal" Bill Clinton. This suggests that the Pax Americana of the future leads our attention to the final subjugation of the Middle East, beginning with the $90bn invasion of Iraq. So far, the influence of Leo Strauss can be regarded as a humanitarian disaster of unimaginable scale. It is not heartening that Bush’s argument for war belies justifications given by the world's leading apologists for the predatory imperialist aims outlined by the crypto-fascist Project for a New American Century. It is also disheartening to know that as an imperialist aggressor, we have failed miserably. Not only have we conquered Europe in the mid 20th Century 2nd world war, we did not insist on tribute by taxation, but forgave their debt and used the Lend Lease to help create the European Union by jump-starting the economies of Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy. We also failed to exact egregious tribute from Japan, North Korea, South Korea and Vietnam. Now we are in Iraq and nowhere is the quagmire more evident than the skyrocketing cost of fuel that the Iraqi people have to pay...a whole .50 a gallon. Of course, their wages are going up to try to match inflation, but all that means is they will have more money to spend on their infrastructure, and not send it to the US.

As Empire-builders, we have let our Roman forbears down.

okaydokay

"because calling attention to someone's writing mistakes in lieu of addressing their argument is a typical troll tactic."

Posted by: Janny_banned_from_Nora's_site_Mae | June 14, 2008 at 05:05 PM

It was not "in lieu of addressing their argument". Devon made no argument other than calling people "the resident nazi's". When (s)he makes an argument I'll address it.
If (s)he wants to refer to "salient put downs" of "liberal stupidities" it might be better to contribute something other than misspelled burps.

feelthelove

Of course, we all know that you, okiedorky have never misspelled or had a typo here, but if you are going to address the 'salient put downs' of your 'liberal stupidities' with regard to spelling, and ignore the
put down in favor of the spelling, it must mean there is some truth to the allegation.

Pot, meet kettle.

okaydokay

Quote the 'salient put downs' of 'liberal stupidities' that Devon made. That or shut it.

okaydokay

And check out the definition of an argument.

feelthelove

Fuck off. You post your direct quotes of me calling your art discussion propaganda or shut it.
You are one to talk about the definition of an argument since you haven't been able to make one
for your point of view since you have been here.

Bush4Ever

When ObaMessiah wins all 57 states, you moronic idiotic stupid ignorant Reich-Wing KKKhristian KKKonservatives are going to have to go underground.

I Heart Chomsky

God Damn Noam Chomsky. Don't get me wrong. I love Chomsky but I despise everything he stands for, his political positions, his values, his writing style, his followers et cetera.

xxxxliberal

Quote the 'salient put downs' of 'liberal stupidities' that Devon made. That or shut it.

Posted by: okaydokay | June 15, 2008 at 08:40 AM

Fuck off.

Posted by: feelthelove | June 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Hahahahahahaha! Love it.

feelthelove

I provided context for that comment. When are you going to post the exact quotes of where I said your art discussion was propaganda, xxxxlxlibtard?

mandible claw

"God damn AmeriKKKa" is no doubt a rousing endorsement to someone like you."

Has nothing to do with "anti-Americanism". Or if it does, what? Answer the question and quit digging at your butt.

Ho-kay then:

Never mind that it was you who brought the term "anti-American into the discussion and then demanded that everyone else argue against it;

"Rather than define the term by its substance, a better way to proceed is to think of anti-Americanism as a way of thinking about the United States that a) refuses to be deterred in its judgement by doubt or the acknowledgement of complexity, and b) subscribes to what Brian Fawcett (in his reflections on Noam Chomsky) calls ‘a Standard Total View (STV) of the United States as a demonic purveyor of more or less total evil’ (1991, p. 175). In other words, no matter what aspect of the United States or its foreign policy is under discussion, you know you are in the presence of an anti-American when you detect the Dogmatic Standard Total View (DSTV) in operation. Thus mere opposition to American policies and attitudes is not sufficient to constitute anti-Americanism. Moreover, anti-Americanism can be motivated by completely opposed points of view: for example, dislike of America because it is ‘overly religious’, or because it is ‘overly secular’. In short, anti-Americanism is a disposition rather than a substantive set of beliefs or arguments."
source
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gheys are weird, man."

Yes, to a drooler, asking a simple question would be considered weird.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Presumably then you have a meaningful answer to my contention that saying "Goddamn kb" is not an indication of dislike for you? Oh wait, you just did your tired "no evidence of any kind that remotely resembles the remotest resemblance of .. what has that got to do with anything that I have ever said anywhere .." routine. Oh well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the REAL world it's quite normal though. And we have things which follow the questions called "answers".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps, in the world that you exist in, which presumably is teaching like your fellow moonbat trolls, given the officious and quasi-intellectual persona you assume when posting here.

In fact in your world, others must answer your questions, or they will get bad grades or detention.

Unfortunately for you, the actual real world don't work like that. In fact acting like a classroom dictator demanding answers to the stupid pseudo-intellectual "thinking-point" problems you present, is just irritating and will encourage others to shite on you.

You see, in the real real world, there are consequences for actions and words.

Which is what Obama is finding out after taking as his mentor and guide, someone who uses his sermons to ask God to damn the country that Obama is trying to get elected to lead..

Whoops! And there's not a damn thing "intellectual" charlatans like you can do about it with the dumb essay questions you pose to posters on a satire blog on the internet and expect answers.

Sucks to be you, I guess. Bwahahahahahahaha!

Just ask anyone on the playground to explian to you. Let me know when you've learned and answered the question.

Your spelling needs work, kb. Please see me after class.

Love for my character"? Who's interested in "love for character"?

You are, apparently. Since you shat on this thread with a presumptuous bunch of crap about what Rev. Wright "really" means.

Going back to the original point;
http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1814

This is a part of the standard Lenten lectionary -- a part of the New Testament readings that Christian churches read in the weeks before Easter. (Note that we went to war with Iraq during Lent, 2003.)

It is also one of the favorite passages of practitioners of liberation theology, because it suggests that Jesus endorsed liberating the people of Israel from the Roman rule of the day. It is not a "turn the other cheek" passage.

He continues on his thesis of equating government with our God, saying that God sent the early settlers to America to take the country from Native Americans; ordained slavery; and that
we believe that God approves of 6 percent of the people on the face of this earth controlling all of the wealth on the face of this earth while the other 94 percent live in poverty and squalor while we give millions of tax breaks to the white rich.
He also criticizes the "lily white" G-7 nations for controlling the world's capital.
~~~~
The government still thinks a woman has no rights over her own body, and between Uncle Clarence (Thomas), who sexually harassed Anita Hill, and a closeted Klan court, that is a throwback to the 19th century, handpicked by Daddy Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, between Clarence and that stacked court, they are about to un-do Roe vs. Wade, just like they are about to un-do affirmative action. The government lied in its founding documents and the government is still lying today. Governments lie.
The government lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie. The government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. They wanted that resolution to get us in the Vietnam War. Governments lie. The government lied about Nelson Mandela and our CIA helped put him in prison and keep him there for 27 years. The South African government lied on Nelson Mandela. Governments lie.
The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis. Governments lie. The government lied about bombing Cambodia and Richard Nixon stood in front of the camera, 'Let me make myself perfectly clear...' Governments lie. The government lied about the drugs for arms Contra scheme orchestrated by Oliver North, and then the government pardoned all the perpetrators so they could get better jobs in the government. Governments lie.
The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie. The government lied about a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and a connection between 9.11.01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie.
The government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq being a threat to the United States peace. And guess what else? If they don't find them some weapons of mass destruction, they gonna do just like the LAPD, and plant the some weapons of mass destruction. Governments lie.
~~~~
But guess what? Governments change. Under Bill Clinton, we got a messed up welfare to work bill, but under Clinton blacks had an intelligent friend in the Oval Office. Oh, but governments change.
The election was stolen. We went from an intelligent friend to a dumb Dixiecrat. A rich Republican who has never held a job in his life; is against affirmative action (and) against education - I guess he is; against healthcare, against benefits for his own military, and gives tax breaks to the wealthiest contributors to his campaign.
~~~~~

... And so on and so forth.

So; the American government created HIV to kill black people (pity they didn't use their special magical science powers to make it only kill black people.. Because they seem to have ended up killing a lot of white folks too), invented crack and sold it in the ghetto to fund arms deals, and is going to plant WMD in Iraq...

But I'm sure you'll come back with another of your inane questions about how that has anything whatsoever to do with the definition of anti-Americanism that I posted above.

Oh and as for proving your irrelevance, it should be simple to do.

Anyone on blamebush who hasn't passed out from boredom, post A or B as your answer to this simple poll:

KB is irrelevant.
A) Yes
B) No

I wonder what the results will be, if anyone bothers to answer? Hm...

kb

"God Damn Noam Chomsky. Don't get me wrong. I love Chomsky but I despise everything he stands for, his political positions, his values, his writing style, his followers et cetera."

Uhhh...What does this have to do with anything mentioned above? There's no one who has been discussed who has said anything remotely close to despising everything something stands for, etc....However, it IS nice to see how the totalitarian mind works first hand. This is YOUR projection of your own totalitarian tendencies. Such nuances as being able to understand the differences between criticisms certain aspects of something and completely despising something can only be understood by most any average lefty, old person, young person, and most other folks who have not been so indoctrinated that they see things in simple black and white. Let's dumb this down for the poor drooler: A fan of the Lakers is watching a game. Jackson orders several dumbass plays which result in the team being beaten. The player yells out "Goddamn you Jackson!" Or even "Lakers". Well, does this mean that he "hates" the team, or even the coach? Idiot. It's probably better just to keep your mouth shut when you're trying to talk about things you don't understand. And when they're things THIS simple, it's probably be better just to shut up completely, go back to the first grade when we usually learn such simple notions, and come back when you understand the basics. There should be MANY more people saying "Goddamn America" about MANY of the things it does. It's embarrassing to see pseudo-patriots pretend that the country does nothing wrong, fights NOT to see it, and whines when honest folks point out the fuckups. Grow the hell up and take some responsibilty for your and your country's actions. And when honest folks point out the mistakes, rather than pissing and moaning that they hate the country, THEIR country in fact, punch yourself in the dumbass mouth and remember that, no, on the contrary, they are the ones who care more. Ignoring problems, shortcomings, etc...is NOT a sign of concern, nor is it patriotic. It's simply being in denial, and solves nothing. "Why, I know my husband is an alcoholic, but whatever you do don't call him one. This would mean that you "despise" and "hate" him. You would be "anti-my husband". Instead, just pretend that he isn't one, and fight against those who are honest enough to point this fact out. They are the enemies. They criticize. They are anti-American." Mrs. Honesty Droolington

kb

"God damn AmeriKKKa" is no doubt a rousing endorsement to someone like you."idiot

"Has nothing to do with "anti-Americanism". Or if it does, what? Answer the question and quit digging at your butt."kb

Ho-kay then:

"Never mind that it was you who brought the term "anti-American into the discussion and then demanded that everyone else argue against it"

Uhhh...Well, you fucked up already. "America-hating" is in title of this thread. I brought up nothing. Can't you folks get ANYTHING correct. The first damn thing you say and you've already screwed it up. I'm sure more will follow. Let's have a look.

Where is the following quote coming from? Anyway, I will make comments:

"Rather than define the term by its substance, a better way to proceed is to think of anti-Americanism as a way of thinking about the United States"???

So, substance isn't the important thing? Hmm....

"that a) refuses to be deterred in its judgement by doubt or the acknowledgement of complexity"???

As in the way the right refuses to be deterred in their idiotic notions and judgements regarding the complexities, such as understand the differences between criticizing something and hating something. Not that this is complex at all....

"and b) subscribes to what Brian Fawcett (in his reflections on Noam Chomsky) calls ‘a Standard Total View (STV) of the United States as a demonic purveyor of more or less total evil’ (1991, p. 175)."???

Well, this demonstrates how little Brain Fawcett understands regarding Chomsky and his ideas. I mean, it takes a REALLY indoctrinated poor thing to read ANY of Chomsky's work and think one sees ANYTHING anti-American at all. Not a word. I've read every book he's written, some several times, and there is not a single sentence in any book he's written which is remotely close to anything anti-American. I suggest that Faucett or whoever learn to read and understand words before making up fairy tales and to pass them off as fact.

"In other words, no matter what aspect of the United States or its foreign policy is under discussion, you know you are in the presence of an anti-American when you detect the Dogmatic Standard Total View (DSTV) in operation."
???

The key phrase here is "you know you are in the presence....". This is 100% nonsense. You "think" you are in the presence of someone anti-American when you "think" you know and understand what they mean when you don't. The above is little more than a first-grader trying to argue that as long as you interpret things the way I do, then you will "understand" and "see" what you're supposed to. It's quite juvenile and funny as a matter of fact.

"Thus mere opposition to American policies and attitudes is not sufficient to constitute anti-Americanism."???

Yeah!!!! THIS one is correct anyway.

"Moreover, anti-Americanism can be motivated by completely opposed points of view: for example, dislike of America because it is ‘overly religious’, or because it is ‘overly secular’. In short, anti-Americanism is a disposition rather than a substantive set of beliefs or arguments."???
source

I can probably agree with this part, though we still don't. And we still don't
know what anti-American is or means. And it sure as hell has nothing to do with critics of state power such as Chomsky.

Uhhh....Was this supposed to be something YOU have written, or that you copied and pasted? If the latter, please leave the link where you got it next time.

mandible claw

Uhhh...What does this have to do with anything mentioned above? There's no one who has been discussed who has said anything remotely close to despising everything something stands for, etc....However, it IS nice to see how the totalitarian mind works first hand.

Today's show is brought to you by the letters K and B, and our theme is "remote."

mandible claw

Uhhh....Was this supposed to be something YOU have written, or that you copied and pasted? If the latter, please leave the link where you got it next time.

Posted by: kb | June 16, 2008 at 12:04 AM

Er.. Dudezor. See the bit where it says "source" hyperlinked in green just underneath the passage? Yeah, the word that you even copy-pasted in your reply?

You iz smarrrrrrt!11!

kb

What does smart have to do with this? I simply copied and pasted your comments into this part, and the source is NOT green here. ANd it's so rare that ANYONE from the right ever uses actual quotes, sources, or anything having to do with information or where they get it, I just jumped the gun. Now, let me get back to making you look like an inbred...

mandible claw

Never mind that it was you who brought the term "anti-American into the discussion and then demanded that everyone else argue against it"

Uhhh...Well, you fucked up already. "America-hating" is in title of this thread. I brought up nothing. Can't you folks get ANYTHING correct.

Apparently not. Better send a note home to my parents asking them to come in and discuss my permanent record.

Anyhoo..

Well, this demonstrates how little Brain Fawcett understands regarding Chomsky and his ideas. I mean, it takes a REALLY indoctrinated poor thing to read ANY of Chomsky's work and think one sees ANYTHING anti-American at all.

(W)Right... I think your persuasive schoolmarm-ish ways are beginning to lead me onto the (Shining) Path of progressyve enlightment!!

We now see that Rev. Wright's claims that the U.S. government introduced AIDS to conduct a genocide against black people, are in fact a reasoned and balanced critique of shortcomings in healthcare legislation,

and "The nation's most implacable critic of U.S. foreign policy," who "argues that the war is unjust, America is the biggest terrorist state and intellectuals always support official violence," sounds nothing remotely similar to (TM) the definition of Anti-Americanism I posted above.

Not a word. I've read every book he's written, some several times,

That's certainly evidence that you're a machosist.

...and there is not a single sentence in any book he's written which is remotely close to anything anti-American.

Right...

Noam Chomsky and Susan Sontag will always be remembered as the two leading American intellectuals who said the wrong thing after Sept. 11.

For Sontag, it was her now infamous New Yorker magazine slap at the idea that the terrorists were cowards. For Chomsky, it was statements like this one: "The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, the bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the U.S. blocked an inquiry at the U.N. and no one cares to pursue it)." To many, it seemed Chomsky was shrugging off the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States because our country commits atrocities just as terrible and often worse.
~~~
What brought the U.S. to the battered region of Yugoslavia, Chomsky wrote, was not a humanitarian drive to stop Slobodan Milosevic from ethnically cleansing yet another Muslim population, but in fact the interests of our foreign policy elite. His critics argue that this is typical; the Chomsky position reflexively brands American foreign intervention as self-interested or imperialistic, regardless of what else might be at stake. But Chomsky's remarks after Sept. 11 struck many as beyond the pale, even those accustomed to his relentless style of dissent.

~~~
I suggest that Faucett or whoever learn to read and understand words before making up fairy tales and to pass them off as fact.
~~~
Why does that sound familiar?

mandible claw

Oops.. PIFW

mandible claw

What does smart have to do with this? I simply copied and pasted your comments into this part, and the source is NOT green here. ANd it's so rare that ANYONE from the right ever uses actual quotes, sources, or anything having to do with information or where they get it, I just jumped the gun. Now, let me get back to making you look like an inbred...

Posted by: kb | June 16, 2008 at 01:07 AM

Er.. Um.. I tried to be a smart-ass and fucKKKEd it up completely but um... er... it's all everyone else's fault .. er and um.. I'm still smarrrrt and all.

I don't think you quite "get" the concept of winning vs. losing lolz

Bwahahahahahahaha

mandible claw

What does smart have to do with this?
Posted by: kb | June 16, 2008 at 01:07 AM

Probably nothing at all. That's not going to stop me using it to bust your ugly chops though.

I Heart Chomsky

Like I said I love Chomsky. I despise his shortcomings though. Just like a wife despising her husband's alcoholism but loving the man or a priest despising a parishiner's sin but loving the parishiner. There is nothing remotely anti-Chomsky about my statement. God Damn Noam Chomsky. See? I care more about him than you.

xxxxliberal

"That's not going to stop me using it to bust your ugly chops though."
--Little Mandy

You don't have it in you. You have IC's problem: A very big head with a very small brain inside. :)

And you can't resist making "smart remarks" which don't actually address the point. But go ahead, fire away! Anyone who refers to, "the inspiring shows of patriotism the American left display to France", will put his foot in his mouth again PDQ. Or didn't you know one can't be "patriotic" about someone else's country? Check it out. There are numerous English dictionaries online.

feelthelove

*yawn*

The comments to this entry are closed.

Fair Trade
Gift Shop

  • fairtradelogo.jpg

Sites I'm Banned From