Tocky on 12/10/2011 at 04:29
Quote Posted by CCCToad
To Tocky: Your loyalty is admirable, but your argument that "we need to vote for my party no matter what" is one that's a dead horse. Its been covered extensively and frequently by political columnists, but the end result is simple. Unlike you, rich special interest groups WILL punish politicians for misbehavior. If one group will support you regardless and the other will only support you if you do what they want, it makes more sense to go with the latter group's agenda.
Jesus on a pogo stick. I have no loyalty for a party. I'm naturally independent but republicans have pushed me solidly into the democratic camp. My loyalty is to the people and against corprate toadies who block helpful legislation. Haven't I explained that in detail? Once the house has shed enough republicans to pass jobs legislation helpful to the people and fund the government at pre Bush tax cut levels (remember Clinton balanced budgets?) we will be halfway home. We can then work on getting rid of harmful hidden 501C4 donations and block the handover of government to corporations by deregulation and republican destruction of the consumer financial protection bureau put in place by Obama... wait. I forgot who I was talking to. Nevermind. Pointless. Forget I said any of this as you have everything I've said so far.
CCCToad on 12/10/2011 at 10:33
Thing is, the Democrats HAD control over all three elected institutions, and how much of that did we get? Even the the legislation that was pointed at those issues (like the healthcare and financial reform bills) were either useless ((
http://bankstocks.com/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=6104&ArticleTypeID=2) like the financial bill) or (
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html) De-fanged to protect special interests. If you really are against "corporate toadies", then direct your anger to everyone who deserves it instead of just the ones in one party.
What makes you think that will do anything different this time without pressure from the base?
later in the article, there's a portion that applies in particular to you:
Quote:
Progressives need to have a sophisticated and nuanced relationship with elected Democrats. After the 2008 elections, too many progressive organizations demobilized believing their job was simply to take orders from the White House to support Obama's agenda, whatever it was. That was a mistake. It's equally a mistake for progressives to overreact in the opposite direction and think they can abandon electoral politics and do nothing to prevent the Republicans from regaining power. What's needed is a powerful grassroots progressive movement to force elected officials to do the right thing more often and to counter-balance the power of big money in politics. The periods of progressive change in American politics, like the Progressive Era, The New Deal, and the Great Society, have come when strong progressive movements have forced elites and elected officials to enact somewhat progressive legislation.
Rug Burn Junky on 12/10/2011 at 12:54
God damn it, you're retarded. Yes, we get it: you're too much of a simpleton to understand that maybe other people grasp this stuff better than you do. So you resort to yammering about how the reason we all think you're an idiot is that everybody else is just "blindly loyal partisans."
Unfortunately, that's just not the case. Yes, of fucking course democrats need pressure from the base. Yes, of course some of them may as well be voted out (Ben Nelson, Max Baucus).
But that's a far cry from your claims that liberals need to abandon democrats because they're just as complicit. You're just miserably failing at political science and game theory now. Add that to the list of things you just don't fucking understand.
It also doesn't make any of your retarded mischaracterizations about Obama into reality: "He killed financial reform!" "He killed the public option!"
No, it's far more, as you quote: "sophisticated and nuanced" than that. Something your pitiable little brain clearly doesn't understand.
Now go the fuck away.
CCCToad on 13/10/2011 at 12:56
Hey Tocky, found something that was just posted since the last time I got online. I hate to quote this guy again, but before now I wasn't able to find a well written list (
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/11/can_ows_be_turned_into_a_democratic_party_movement/singleton/) that details the extent of Obama's partnership with Wall Street's elite
And, again, its worth re-iterating that nobody here is arguing to vote Republican. If a progressive movement is able to push good candidate through the Democratic party's primaries and replace ones who work for big business (ie, like Republicans) then the problem of how to remove Republicans from power will take care of iself.
Hell, to do anything else only ensures a Republican victory. Wasn't 2010 a good example of the results that strategy got the left?
Rug Burn Junky on 13/10/2011 at 13:12
Yes, because the 127th time you post the same guy's paranoid ad hominem delusions is surely going to be more effective than the first 126, you thick-headed fuck.
Never mind the fact that your political analysis is roughly the equivalent of watching a flag blowing in the breeze and explaining to the rest of us about how that flag causes wind (usually getting the direction wrong to boot).
CCCToad on 13/10/2011 at 17:41
I've been trying to ignore you, since I don't see any point in responding to ad-hominem attacks, name calling, and strawmen which all lack any substance.
But its kind of funny how Greenwald has gone from someone you respected when he ragged no bush, to a paranoid delusional now that he's attacking your guy. Greenwald has grounded each of his arguments by referencing his sources, each of which refers to factual information. As You have done nothing but scream like a kid about how much everyone else sucks, Greenwald's argument is considerably more persuasive.
And, if he's so wrong, why not write him about it and tell him why he's wrong? He's already demonstrated a willingness to admit he's incorrect.
Besides which, you've already admitted my main point as being correct, even naming one Democrat politican that I despise (Baucus)
Quote:
Yes, of fucking course democrats need pressure from the base. Yes, of course some of them may as well be voted out (Ben Nelson, Max Baucus).
Besides, I think Tocky's perfectly capable of fighting his own battles.
Matthew on 13/10/2011 at 17:50
I just don't understand how people act all shocked and so on when political leaders have to compromise in order to get results. I mean, isn't that half the point of a democratic system?
Rug Burn Junky on 13/10/2011 at 19:29
Toad,
I know you won't understand this, but you don't get to decide who's making good faith arguments. Christ, you so lack self awareness that YOU are accusing ME of engaging in strawmen? Do you realize how laughable that is?
Hell, you're even mistaken about me agreeing with your "main point" (hint, it's a flag, you're confused about the wind).
And of course, you really are quite confused about what an ad hominem is. Now, if I were to say, "you're wrong about everything, therefor you're wrong about this." That would in fact be one.
But that's never what I say. My argument is different. It's that "you are wrong so spectacularly often, and so unable to register and respond to your own shortcomings that its a waste of time dealing with you too deeply." In short, you have forfeited your right to have your opinion taken seriously because you argue in bad faith. That doesn't mean that its entirely wrong, but that it carries no credibility.
That also doesn't mean that you don't get substantive critiques, but that's part of the problem. You are so deeply corrupted by cognitive dissonance that you don't seem to process them. Take, for instance your recent (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136914&p=2092940&viewfull=1#post2092940) boast about rick perry. I responded with an actual substantive refutation. But you obliviously carry on as though it never happened, and maintain this fiction in your head that all you get are insults. Christ, some day a therapist is going to have a field day breaking through this reality denial field you've created.
And that's what enables you to repeatedly attribute things to my bias towards "my guy" or "my party" which couldn't be further from the truth. They are neither. I've said that repeatedly, and you can't seem to process it because, well, reality doesn't seem to matter to you.
Now, with respect to greenwald, of course you think he's persuasive. He's prone to wild exaggerations and intentional stubborn misunderstandings. The worst parts of his writing are always what you key on, because you lack the faculties to recognize them as such.
Do I have respect for him? Qualified. Even when he was ripping bush for torture I thought he went way over the line, even if I agreed with parts of his arguments, parts were paranoid delusions then. He's consistent that way. Parts of his argument against obama are perfectly valid. But what you use them to support is fucking loony. You are barely able to process his already questionable arguments, so in your hands they turn to a level of gibberish unheard of amongst people who've graduated kindergarten.
Now as an example, you keep pointing to "obama took money from wall street" presumably to infer some sort of corruption. I'm pretty sure you don't recognize the ad hominem (once removed) inherent in that statement. But let me spell it out for you.
Wall street is a bastion of a number of types of people. For one thing, the rank and file back office people are mostly native New Yorkers. Heavily lean democratic. My secretary gives money to democrats, and she's included, you really want to engage in a discussion about her mmotives
But beyond those endless numbers, there's the high net worth guys. Now, quite a few are randian, gordon gekko types who operate purely out of self interest. Some with distinct misanthropic right wing leanings, others with more pure conservative tendencies. But an extremely high percentage are high achievement, liberal, ivy league types, who are prone to supporting democrats. Now there are plenty of opportunists just giving money to curry wall street favor. But most of the principles driving donations are authentic and involve a revulsion over the extremist tea parties (or a meanspirited sympathy to them). For your thesis to be true, it would disregard this reality, and revolve around your ability to read minds and verify that you can infer motive from someone's positionor career. It's faulty logic, and you keep repeating it, but it's no more true than the motives you misattribute to me in crafting your arguments, or anyone else such as tocky. And given your demonstrable inability to draw conclusions on even the simplest matters, it's not surprising that these more ridiculous leaps of logic fail you as well.
So stop saying stupid shit like this. It's arguing in bad faith. And if you can't stop saying stupid shit like this, stay the fuck out of these conversations. Until GBM and David come to their senses and ban you for good from comm chat for polluting every single political/financial/economic discussion,you keeping your bullshit to yourself is about the best we can hope for.
frozenman on 13/10/2011 at 19:46
RBJ, Can I suggest you start using Markov chains to automatically generate replies to CCCToad? Here is some sample text based on this thread alone:
Quote:
Yes, we all think you're retarded. Yes, of a one any of the public option!" No, just sick of it. But that's not the fuck up. You really do live in fact, your pitiable little brain clearly doesn't understand. Now go the case. Yes, of the financial reform!" "He killed the Anosognosic's Dilemma - too stupid you have no one trick pony, concern-trolling "democrats" about how the standing reply still nonsense. Yes, of the list of your claims that flag causes wind (usually getting all think you're still holds: "Oh no, the fact that your claims that liberals need to know why? Because nobody called you to politics, you're retarded. Yes, because even recognize this, this place. Do you quote: "sophisticated and parroting the Anosognosic's Dilemma - too much more pleasant the fuck up, please? No, just how that maybe other people grasp this place. Do you had any blindly partisan democrats here, so you had any of whatever pundit you delusional for predicting that. Something your retarded mischaracterizations about Obama into the same guy's paranoid ramblings of logic. But that's a level of knowing) and parroting the base. Yes, we all masturbatorily gleeful every single time. So just shut the 127th time you just shut the first 126, you have no one any good. We get it: you're retarded. Yes, we all masturbatorily gleeful every time you post the actual acts (which you predicted. Because nobody called you realize just not the fuck out and back-peddlepedal every time you were wrong. Goddammit, get the equivalent of a shit. Shut the financial reform!" "He killed the list of logic. But you're retarded. Yes, of what you were banned?
(
http://www.beetleinabox.com/mkv_input.html)
