Home / Culture and Society / Jim Jones Taught Me not to Drink the Kool-Aid

Jim Jones Taught Me not to Drink the Kool-Aid

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Comedian Bill Cosby once told a great tale about a football team. The coach is prepping the team before the big game, getting them all fired up for the contest. “We’re gonna fight!” chants the team. “We’re gonna win!” All fired up and rarin’ to go, they attempt to leave the locker room – only to discover that the locker room door was locked.

I told you that story to tell you this one. Back in the early days of pop psych, Dr. Eric Berne wrote about a scenario in which two men vying for the attention of a woman are set up to butt heads over her. He called this scheme “Let’s You And Him Fight” from the misleading role the object of attention plays with each of the suitors to get them to display the strength of their ardor via an altercation between her knights-errant. While they joust, she decamps with yet another champion.  So why do I relate these vignettes? They form a description of why I feel that Barack Obama and his handlers played the American people to win the presidency.

Obama played the role of Cosby’s coach. “We’re gonna fight for health care! We’re gonna fight for worker’s rights! We’re gonna end all those terrible Bush wars! Yes, we CAN!” All fired up, the people flocked to the polls, only to discover that the door to the political playing field was slammed shut and bricked up tighter than was the victim of Poe’s Cask of Amontillado.

Once in office, the Obama strategy shifted to something resembling Berne’s. He refused to lead himself, expecting we the people to play the role he had auditioned for. “You voted for me, now get out there and show me you you can do it for me. Go get those Republicans!” while he decamps for his assignation with Wall Street. Hence Rahm’s deprecatory description of liberals and progressives.

According to Berne’s theory, the advantage to be accrued is in the idea that “honest competition is for suckers” and the betrayal forms the tragicomic distraction necessary for Obama and his crew to show the hucksters of Wall Street that they also know how to scam people. It’s as if winning the election and then not delivering on most of their campaign promises was something of a gang initiation. The successful scam probably won Obama a few perks, such as the Nobel Peace Prize (his acceptance of which was a classic slap in the face), and maybe the right to service the banksters in the way they like it best: with Your Money.

Now that Obama has announced his 2012 re-election bid, the award-winning team which provided Coach Obama with his rousing pre-game rant are again hard at work. The empty promises are already being fired like star bursts at a fireworks show. He’s gonna fight to reverse that massive sellout over wealthy tax cuts last December, for example. He’s gonna fight for a new energy future, an empty promise which elicits a lot “been here, done this” from many observers. One of our Technorati compatriots summed up Obama’s pitch to environmentalists and fossil fuel foes this way: “Obama’s speech was just recycled ideas… A hope and change energy policy. We have not and will not get closer to energy independence with Obama.” Just ask BP.

Well, allow me to illuminate a fact for Obama’s campaign team: We’re not all buying it. There are many out there in the blogosphere (such as this one, for example) who were fooled once and won’t be fooled again.

The calumny for exposing that Obama is as naked as was Bush is impressive! Clearly, that slick advertising campaign which won awards from the professionals of Madison Avenue did its job. For in spite of the long, dark, stormy night of economic terror where we remain, the Obama Orange Kool-Aid is still being guzzled almost as fast as the Koch Brothers can dispense Totalitarian Tea to their zombies across the street. But because that 2008 scam strategy of selling nothing for something worked once, it will work again in 2012, right?

Not if I can help it. I’m not one of Rahm’s f’ing retards, and you shouldn’t be either. But you have to follow the links, or you’ll get zinged again next year.

Powered by

About pessimist

  • Clavos

    Very interesting analysis of Obamian strategy, Realist. Much food for thought here.

  • This is not about “Obamian strategy” so much as it is about Realist’s disillusionment, which would apply to virtually any politician. American elections are fought and won in the center, and centrist politics will always cause an allergic reaction in purists/true believers on both the left and right.

    Realist has told us that he wrote in Ron Paul’s name in 2008, but hysterically, loudly, incessantly complains that Obama has betrayed his left/liberal constituency. [This is paradoxical enough in itself, since Paul’s domestic policies would look like scorched earth to any left/liberal person.]

    But Obama didn’t win the election as a liberal. There aren’t enough liberals in this country to win a national election. At least half of those who voted for Obama in 2008 were not liberals at all; they were voting for someone new because they were sick of the status quo.

    Realist makes the mistake of assuming that everyone thinks like he does. I respect his unique voice, but his shrillness is appalling and, ironically, his total lack of political realism makes his articles irrelevant to the real world.

  • Many of the president’s ‘betrayals’ of his base on issues like Guantanamo were forced on him by the intransigence of Congress. We don’t live in a dictatorship, and the president can’t get every policy he wants by fiat.

    Ironically, the loudest voices in the GOP and Tea Party have insisted on branding this president [who is a centrist by political necessity] as a Radical Socialist, a Tyrant, someone who habitually “apologizes for America,” and someone who wasn’t even born here and is a secret Muslim.

    If Realist could pick someone who could effectively counter that kind of sewer-level political opposition, who would it be? I’m waiting for names. And how, pray tell, would he get these magical saints elected [if they even exist]?

  • Frank

    I was saying all of this before the election. Would anyone listen? Not on your life!

  • Clavos

    Well of course, as a follower, you would see Obama’s actions in an entirely different light, handy,

    That’s what makes politics interesting.

    I still see plenty to ponder in the article…

  • I’m a liberal who finds liberal/left activists almost as repellent as the Tea Party. Both groups share the inability to see past the ends of their own noses and deal with the world as it is.

    I’ve quoted this before, but as James Carville once said on CNN: [I’m paraphrasing] “A politician can never win trying to please liberal activists/special interest groups…because there is no way to satisfy them with anything approaching a practical compromise. They will always keep complaining, complaining, complaining.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Read handy’s second paragraph in comment #6 very carefully – for trying to please such special interest groups is every bit as futile on the left as it is on the right.

    Again – again! – moderation in everything.

    You seem to think – indeed, you and other conservatives assume – that we liberals love everything Obama says and does. We don’t, not by a long shot. If you ever listened to liberal/progressive radio, you’d find the pundits attacking Obama quite vociferously almost every day.

    But the reason why we back him is that he is the lesser of many evils, and there’s no one on the Democratic political horizon who is able to win in Obama’s absence…except for Hillary, and she’s not running.

    When you attack Obama, and when I feel your attack is not warranted, I will defend him. That does NOT make me some kind of Obamabot. After all, have you written any articles praising Democratic presidents? No. I’ve written two on BC containing sincere praise for Republican presidents…and I recommend you take this into account when you sit back and accuse me – and liberals like me – of blind support for Obama or liberal ideals.

  • zingzing

    what the fuck has obama done? i dunno.


    there you go, realist. maybe you could look at it this time rather than just go off on some nonsense.

  • Again – again! – moderation in everything.

    The full quote is: “Everything in moderation – including moderation”.

    This, I think, is where many who supported Obama feel that he’s gone wrong.

    Compromise is fine, but there are times when it’s more appropriate to retrieve one’s can opener and break open one’s supply of vigorously-assault-buttocks.

  • Clavos

    handy and Glenn,

    All I said to handy is that he would naturally see Obama’s record with different colored glasses than Realist — not either an hyperbolic nor an untrue statement — he does.

    As to paragraph 2 of #6:

    I agree with Carville, and would add that the same thing can be said about a pol “trying to please [conservative] activists/special interest groups…because there is no way to satisfy them with anything approaching a practical compromise. They will always keep complaining, complaining, complaining.”

    Give ANY human an inch and they will ALWAYS come back for the mile…

  • Cannonshop

    I don’t know, watching a Liberal Democrat re-run George Bush Junior’s biggest mistake-cranked, spinal-tap-style, “To Eleven”, then watching him sign a bill he backed, but did not read, with a speech claiming it does things it does not do…then seeing him re-tread the endless war concept in yet ANOTHER Arabic-speaking country, I think maybe the people with buyer’s remorse on this guy might have a point.

    To be fair, though, Realist, Obama Did say, during the campaign, that if he was elected, energy prices would skyrocket….

    and they have, so you can’t say he doesn’t keep ALL his promises.

  • Baronius

    A good rule of thumb: don’t put up to malice what can be explained by inexperience and naivete.

  • Doc, even I would like to see more whoop-ass, canned or otherwise, used at least occasionally by the administration.

    But Obama seems to find sound-bite politics too cheesy. His on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand, moderate, measured, cautious centrism is part of his law-professor nature.

    It seems designed to drive activists nuts, but it will probably get him reelected.

    What I don’t agree with at all is the paranoid notion, espoused by Realist and others, that he deliberately deceived and betrayed his furthest-left supporters. That is total hogwash [a not-too-appealing flavor of kool-aid].

  • Costello

    Is the Realist name supposed to be ironic? Because you have no realistic view of how government actually works. All presidents have to deal with opposition with people in and out of their party.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc #9 –

    Well said!

  • isn’t this the same article who wrote a few days ago?

  • Yes, Realist is back all too soon banging on the same drum with the same tune in mind. I guess he believes if he does this often enough, that people will finally wake up and smell his bitter brew. (Apologies for the mixed metaphor.) You could probably take the 11 comments on his previous article and put them here in tact, and they would make the same sense.

    I’m sorry Clav, I don’t see anything particularly thought provoking in the article. It is becoming Realist’s mantra/rant. Obama has disappointed him, and he’s gonna hold his breath in defiance until the evil dark lord is banished from the realm and replaced by his ideal of a left wing Sir Lancelot.

    Conservative writers here at BC and elsewhere accused all of us lefties as being adoring, witless Obamabots. Sure, Obama was appealing, kind of like a 2008 political version of a new IPod. But few people – excepting for a few irrepressable zealots – believe that a new IPod or IPad or IPhone is going to solve all of our problems and deliver us to the land of great Scotch and honey. Nor did most of us believe that of Obama. We DID see in him the possibility of something new, and someone far different than W. In that, he has not disappointed.

    As I asked in response to Realist’s previous article: What president hasn’t fallen short of expectations? As is aptly noted above, a lot of what Obama “promised” during his campaign has either fallen far short of the stated goals, or have failed to materialize at all. Certainly, Obama has his failings as do those in his administration. Anyone with a brain knows that 90% of all campaign promises are bullshit regardless of the candidate.

    But these shortcomings and failures are also due in no small measure to the total obstructionist actions (and inactions) of Congressional Reps and some Bluedog Dems. Frankly, I don’t remember any time when the opposition in Congress has been so totally set against anything and everything coming out of the White House or from the opposition in either or both Houses as the spectacle we’ve witnessed over the last 2+ years. Nor have I ever witnessed such below the belt tactics as those put forth by Reps at all levels with their relentless attacks on Obama’s legitimacy as president and casting aspersions at his heritage and upbringing. The fear and hate mongering have not stopped and are, in fact, being geared up once again as we head into the next election cycle. Thanks to the Newster and others, we now have potential voters out there with visions of Obama and Mau Maus dancing around in their otherwise empty little heads. MAU MAUS? WTF!

    I’d love to see the response if Dems stood up in Congress or on say, Meet the Press, and claimed that our illustrious House Speaker actually and purposely mispronounces his name which should be pronounced as Boner not Baner because, afterall, he really IS a Dick. Aw, but that wouldn’t be kosher, now would it?


  • Doug Hunter

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    Poor, poor Obama, he only had a vetoproof majority in the senate and a large margin in the house… how was he supposed to do anything with that? And all those poor personal attacks… every democrat was always respectful and honest about Bush.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Clavos

    As usual, everything wrong is the fault of the Republicans. We could put Christ, Buddha, Mohammed and Moses all in the White House as a team president and those evil Republicans would fuck it all up.


  • Well, Clav, the same can be said the other way.

    Veto proof? Yeah, you got me there. Filibuster proof? Well, no. The Senate Reps made use of that idiotic and arcane rule more than any other Congressional sessions EVER. Effectively, they did the same thing that Wisconsin and Indiana Dems did in their respective legislatures. The repeated use of the filibuster precluded even the possibility of debate, let alone mustering up a vote.

    No one I know of seriously questioned W’s heritage or citizen status. No one I know of ever cast aspersions against Laura or their kids – except when the latter made news themselves. Michelle and their kids have been the target of several often ugly verbal attacks by the likes of O’Reilly and Limbaugh among others.

  • Cannonshop

    No one I know of seriously questioned W’s heritage or citizen status. No one I know of ever cast aspersions against Laura or their kids –

    Well, nobody who wasn’t a democrat, anyway. (those attacks originated in the hotly-contested Democratic Primary. Blame Hillary-her people were the ones that originated them.)

    The favoured Bush oriented themes included “Bushitler”, “Little Hitler” and “nazi”.

  • troll

    …are you guys seriously going through this partisan bullshit festival again?

    party politics is for dweebs and fucknuts

  • “party politics is for dweebs and fucknuts”


    Well, it’s what the world turns on – pretty much everywhere. So, I don’t know if I qualify as a dweeb or a fucknut – hey, maybe both!

  • Baronius

    People did question whether Bush was legitimately elected, same as Obama. People did criticize Laura and the kids – I’ve heard some comments about Michelle from the bottom-rung of the Right, but nothing about the kids.

    As to the point of the article, I think it was a follow-up to the article of a couple of days earlier. The first one was about opposition to a second term for the President; a lot of the comments accused Realist of unrealistic expectations. In this article, Realist fleshes out what he objected and objects to from Obama. You might not like the message, and I sure don’t agree with it, but you can’t fault the article as repetitious.

  • Not exactly the same as Obama. There’s a difference between having doubt because of all the political hacks that were involved in the decision, which would have dogged Gore as well if he won, and having doubt how a secret Muslim from another country was elected

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    Problem is, there were documented cases of voter caging by Republicans in majority-Democratic districts that wrongfully disenfranchised tens of thousands of legally-registered voters…whereas AFAIK there were ZERO fraudulent votes nationwide due to the voter registration fraud by a few ACORN foot soldiers.

    Furthermore, IIRC the Florida AG stopped the recounting of the votes…and a study by several news organizations later found that Bush should have lost Florida, and thus the election.

    How do these compare to the obviously false claim of birthers against Obama?

    In other words, Baronius, it’s a false argument to compare the birthers’ claims to what we know for a fact happened in the two previous elections.

  • No one I know of seriously questioned W’s heritage or citizen status.

    But they did question his species.

  • Dread actually makes a good point. While such “questions” regarding Bush were made primarily tongue-in-cheek, those being laid against Obama are serious in nature. Much of the name calling against Bush was in bad taste, even nasty, but, again, not serious.

    Calling into question Obama’s place of birth, his religion and even his loyalties are of quite a different nature. And whether the intent is there or not, much of it does have racial overtones.


  • Clavos

    and a study by several news organizations later found that Bush should have lost Florida, and thus the election.

    Not exactly. It was a lot more complicated than that, but then you always read things the way you your preconceptions lead you.

    Actually, those studies, which were conducted by a consortium of newspapers, including The New York Times, and with The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald, — both liberal newspapers (the St. Petersburg Times is among the nation’s most liberal) leading the study, found if the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had been finished, or if the recount of only Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia counties requested by the Gore camp had been undertaken, that Bush won anyway.

    According to Wikipedia:

    The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 absentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard. (emphasis added)

    In addition, the NYT conducted its own analysis and concluded, again according to Wikipedia, that:

    The New York Times did its own analysis of how mistaken overvotes might have been caused by confusing ballot designs. It found that the butterfly ballot in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County may have cost Gore a net 6286 votes, and the two page ballot in similarly Democratic Duval County may have cost him a net 1999 votes, each of which would have made the difference by itself.

    However, the rest of the newspapers in the study rejected that idea on the very sound basis that there was no way to know what the voters’ original intent had been.

  • Clavos

    much of it does have racial overtones

    Puleeze, B-tone. You libs are going to have to lay to rest the racism shit sometime in the next thousand years.

    Tell you what: if by some miracle the US elects a conservative Black individual will you guys refrain from calling him or her an Uncle Tom or Oreo, because of their conservative, establishment views? And if you don’t (because it WILL happen), can we then say y’all are racist?

  • Clavos

    Correction to my 29. The Miami Herald was not involved in the study mentioned, though it did help fund it.

  • Clavos

    And Glenn, the recount was stayed by SCOTUS:

    Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is the landmark United States Supreme Court decision that effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Only eight days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), and only three days earlier, had preliminarily halted the recount that was occurring in Florida. (emphasis added)

  • STM

    This bloke knows exactly how Realist’s hypothetical coach feels. It’s a a 3/4 time rev up from an Australian Rules football coach (the only rule is that machine guns aren’t allowed).

    Or maybe this poor bastard. President Obama after his first term??? Lollies = candy, Solo = can of lemon soda.

  • S.TM

    There there’s the virtual version of a regular day in Washington (Kelston Boys’ High vs Auckland Grammar).

  • The 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court reinforced the idea that this was a tie, with the ideology of Florida’s state government and of the court’s conservative quintet putting a thumb on the scale of justice. I don’t think Baritone, Glenn or I want to relitigate this old fight, but if it had gone the other way, you would still feel pangs of resentment too.

  • S.T..M

    Sorry folks …. that first one should have been this, the Aussie version of Realist’s footy coach . Lol.

    They lost.

  • Clav, race IS at the heart of much of the opposition to Obama and the Reps know it. That’s why the likes of Gingrich and Huckabee go out of their way to infuse the discussion with untruths about Obama’s supposed upbringing in Kenya or his likely brainwashing in muslim madrasas, or the influence of the Mau Mau revolt and so on. They know it’s all bullshit, but that doesn’t matter. All they need to do is repeat any # of keywords that conjure up images of some kind of unchristian, unamerican and UNWHITE, socialist/communist/fascist that’s sullying our White House.

    A lot of people hate Obama for no other reason than his race.


  • Saying that the birther view of Obama as Other, a foreign-born socialist radical, has a racist tinge is not nearly the same thing as saying everyone who opposes Obama for other reasons is racist. Or saying that all Republicans are racist.

  • Clavos

    I don’t think Baritone, Glenn or I want to relitigate this old fight, but if it had gone the other way, you would still feel pangs of resentment too.

    Of course.

    I was merely pointing out that it was SCOTUS that stopped the recount, not Florida’s AG, who at the time, was Bob Butterworth, a Democrat and chairman of the Florida Gore campaign, and thus not likely to want to stop the recount, never mind that he didn’t have the authority to do so.

  • Clavos

    A lot of people hate Obama for no other reason than his race.

    Not nearly as many as are routinely alleged by Democrats pissed off that most of us who aren’t Democrats don’t like the guy.

    handy, thank you for pointing that out (#38).

  • Clavos

    And for the record:

    The fact that he is Black means nothing to me; there are several conservative and/or libertarian Black politicians for whom I would gladly vote for POTUS.

    The fact that he’s a liberal Democrat is what I don’t like about him.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I don’t really have time to debate right now – I’ve got somewhere to be. So let me just take you at your word and say you’re right in your corrections of my claims…but you still haven’t – and probably won’t – address what I said about the Republicans’ voter caging that wrongfully disenfranchised so many voters.

    That, and it doesn’t change my point – the very legal and understandable controversies about Dubya’s elections canNOT be compared to the sheer idiocy of birther logic…

    …and half of all Republicans are buying into birtherism right now. How about you?

  • Clavos


    No. I would have no problem with a non-citizen being president, I think it’s a silly requirement anyway.

  • Clavos

    Oh, and one more time:


  • zingzing

    clavos: “Tell you what: if by some miracle the US elects a conservative Black individual…”

    ha! go on…

    “…will you guys refrain from calling him or her an Uncle Tom or Oreo, because of their conservative, establishment views?”

    yeah… i, for one, had never heard this “oreo” term before it was brought up here. it’s novel, and i get the reference, but goddamn if that ain’t racist. and “uncle tom”… what is this, the 19th century? you have to have something better than that. (and my god if people haven’t really, really misunderstood who the character of uncle tom was. yes, he was subservient, but only up until the point where he wasn’t, and it was his dignity, not his lack there of, that defined him, as he always stood up for what he believed in.)

    “And if you don’t (because it WILL happen), can we then say y’all are racist?”

    fine. so… by your own logic, if you’ve used these terms, you’re racist. although i think anyone who is a conservative (especially socially,) is a traitor to the human race on some level. i don’t care if they’re white, black or zebra-striped. always knew it would be the zebras… kenyans, you know.

  • first, you would need the miracle of Republicans nominating a conservative Black individual

  • Clavos

    I resent you calling me, a conservative, a traitor to the human race; for that I would have to be human.

    And from what I’ve seen of the human race…

    And BTW, the oreo thing has been around since I was in college in the sixties, which is where I first heard it — from a Black friend.

    Apparently, not all Blacks consider Oreo to be a slur.

    Especially check out the reader comments on this blog.

  • zingzing

    frankly, clavos, i enjoy calling myself a cracker, calling white people i know crackers, cracker-this, cracker-that all down the block. but if someone i don’t know calls me a cracker, i’m liable to get a bit offended, and i might get a bit extra offended if i know they’re trying to use the word in a way that’s obviously a putdown. if they’re trying to get under my skin, it’s a rather good tactic.

    and take another look at your link. the tone of that is a little off. makes one wonder if she really embraces “oreo” or if she’s just making light of it. it’s an offensive term to many, but if someone wants to embrace it (in an obvious attempt to deflate it), that’s their right.

  • zingzing

    and i never picked you out for much of a social conservative. at least not in the way i find truly offensive. although your voting patterns may or may not make it all a moot point.

  • I believe Streisand played a character – maybe in “The Owl and the Pussycat” back in either the late 60s or early 70s, who was the lead singer in a vocal trio called “The Oreos.” Her 2 partners were black.

    Clav – That well over 50% of Republicans ARE birthers, to believe there is no racial aspect to that belief is, IMO, naive.

    I will say this: Had Colin Powell run for president back in 2000, he would likely have won whether he ran as a Rep or a Dem. He probably couldn’t win now, but race would have little to do with it. Wisely, he apparently has no interest in doing so – nor did he back in 2000.


  • Clavos


    So what if well over 50% of republicans are birthers?

    I’d bet that close to 50% of ’em are creationists too.

    And some of ’em are flat earthers.

    And 100% of ’em are GW deniers.

    The guy who just burned the koran is probably a republican.

    I’ve heard that 100% of the KKK is republican.

    What are you gonna do about it? My bet is nothing, you liberals are too squeamish.

  • Clavos, I’ve no interest in this “debate” as it seems sterile and pointless to me but I thought you had no time for Wikipedia.

    As you quote it extensively in your #29, have you had a change of mind?

  • zing: the use of the term oreo in that way has been around for at least 25 years, maybe 40, and, to the best of my knowledge, was coined back in the day by politically conscious blacks in derogatory reference to other black skinned people who didn’t seem “black” enough.

  • Clavos (again!), you are really great at picking holes in what you are against but I, for one, would really like to read stuff from you outlining what you are for.

    What is your vision of a more positive society and how would it be achieved?

  • zingzing

    chris: “zing: the use of the term oreo in that way has been around for at least 25 years…”

    yeah, well, it slipped by me. oh, the things i’ve missed…

  • zingzing

    clavos: “you liberals are too squeamish.”

    and here i thought we’d be mowing you down and putting you into socialist death camps by now. oh my. i guess we put our aggression elsewhere. now where do i shoot this rabbit in the face? in the eyeball? how much will that splatter? i want to scare the folks, you know. how do you freak people the fuck out? hey bunny, where do i shoot you to make your head explode all over your neighbors? ANSWER ME. hey, hey. i’m only trying to get you to understand that these people need to understand. bunny? i’m going to fuck you up, bunny.

  • troll

    Baritone #23 re party politics – Well, it’s what the world turns on – pretty much everywhere.

    not my world – in my work-a-day world party affiliation is irrelevant

    as for choosing between dweeb and fucknut you can compare your party attitude to those of Lenin – the ultimate party guy and penultimate fucknut (but no dweeb)

    …something to do with the urge to purge

  • Cannonshop

    amusingly, some of the best ridicule of the Birthers comes not from the Left (which originated the claim), but from the Right…in other words, the Birther Rumour doesn’t carry a lot of weight with the conservative base.

  • Baronius

    Cannon – I don’t know if you ever watch Red Eye on FNC, but they’ve had a lot of fun with the birthers. Recently (before the intervention in Libya) the host asked the panel whether they were surprised that Obama wasn’t helping out his fellow Muslims, or whether he was holding off due to the historically weak relations between Libya and his native Kenya.

  • Cannonshop

    #59 Nope, I’m at work when it’s on, or I’m online. I get about 3 hours of news a day, and it’s CNBC mostly, (Business reporting, unlike other strains of teevee, has to actually have some accuracy, and be less involved in the emotions of the anchors) and that’s in the morning hours before work, so I miss MOST of the commentary shows amid analysis by people who have to be fairly accurate or they don’t get paid.