Fuckin' liberals...

[Drunken Irishman]

I've been very disappointed with Wonkette lately. I still like it, but I can see they're starting to push a certain agenda - you know, that Obama is part of the problem.

This headline accompanies one of their articles today on the Oakland protests:

Obama Raises Money In San Francisco As Cops Gas Oakland Protesters

It was also posted on their FB page: http://www.facebook.com/Wonkette

A comment there pissed me off. It was some hipster liberal saying he won't be voting for Obama in '12 because he was just too disillusioned! If

Now I'm tired of this shit. I'm sick and tired of whiny liberals. I know a lot aren't and many are tirelessly working their butts off to get Obama reelected and I commend them. THEY GET IT. People like this guy, though? He doesn't.

So I had to reply. I wasn't nice in my reply and I don't think I have to be. Anyone who openly admits they're fine with giving the Republicans a win deserves to be embarrassed and scorned for it.

I'm tired of playing nice with these douchebags.

This is what I said (you can also see my comment there under Sean Michael Reynolds):

Quote:Aww poor guy, disillusioned with a president who's running this country about as pragmatic and non-ideological as he said he would back in '08.

That's your own fault.

You know what? Don't vote for Obama. That's your right. But don't turn around and bitch when the Republicans come into power and finally slam the door shut on the working class in this country.

You know, there is a reason liberalism has so little to its name since the 60s ended and it's because of the mindset you see above. Instead of fighting to build a foundation for your ideology, when things don't go quite your way, you give it up and push the reset button, essentially putting us in a deeper and worse position than we were when this whole mess started.

It's the same bullshit rhetoric that got us George Bush for eight years. You had that fat-ass Michael Moore touring college campuses talking to idealistic youth who were probably living off their daddy's pretty penny about how Bush and Gore were no different and that it ultimately didn't matter who they cast their vote for - in the end, the same policies would've played out.

That didn't happen, though. Gore would have been infinitely better than Bush, even if he wasn't some radical Marxist anarchist.

But because so many disenchanted liberals sat that election out, surely believing Bush couldn't be that bad, he not only walked into the White House, he turned around and fucked the entire world.

But that's okay! It's all on Gore, right? Moore was just expressing his opinion and dammit, if Gore wanted MY VOTE he needed to address MY concerns. Forget that he was pushing the idea Bush wasn't ready for primetime and his conservative pals would not only prove dangerous at home, but internationally - it would hurt my feel goods inside to cast a vote for a professional who, you know, might actually help slightly push my agenda.

Could you imagine how better off this country would be, your movement would be, if Gore had won in '00? I certainly don't think he would've been a miracle worker, but I damn well know he wouldn't have cut taxes for the wealthy, waged war in Iraq and spent us into oblivion.

But because he was boring and not liberal enough, you went for the pass, sat that one out, decided it wasn't worth it. Principle! You said. Well principle doesn't mean jack shit if we're all forced to suffer for it.

So instead of working on twelve of sixteen years of left-of-center policies, Bush came in and wiped out everything gained in the 90s and returned us to the 80s economic system that about killed the working class.

Now you're going to say, "eh, so what..." and either vote 3rd party or sit on your lazy ass when election day comes because you didn't get everything you wanted. Well fuck you. Fuck that mindset. You're not the only person who suffers and I'm sick of that spoiled, selfish attitude from many on the left. THIS IS WHY YOU FAIL. THIS IS WHY REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES HAVE DOMINATED THE POLITICAL SCENE FOR 40 YEARS.

Change does not happen over night. It took Republicans and conservatives 70 years to overturn a great deal of Roosevelt's New Deal policies, but they kept at it. They realized you couldn't do it one fell swoop. Oh sure, you'd have to swallow some shit sandwiches and moderate politics, but dammit, they forged onward, more committed to their ideas and principles, even if meant taking a step or two back.

Eisenhower begat Nixon who begat Ford who begat Reagan who begat both Bushes. It wasn't one president who slowly turned this country to the right. It was slow amble toward that ideology, but once they got their foundation into place, something they've been doing since the 1970s, it all came together.

But liberals? That's too much work. They want it now! They're the freakin' Veruca Salt of politics. If they don't get it, they stomp their feet, and then send us all the way down the garbage chute just to hold on to whatever little principle they had.

Then we hit the restart button and do it all over again. Because Clinton wasn't good enough and Gore wasn't good enough and Kerry wasn't good enough and now Obama isn't good enough.

But together, they are. Because we're not having to rebuild this whole fucking movement every time some of you dicks decide you're not content enough with one candidate. And make no mistake, that's exactly what we're doing.

Every time you let a Republican win - every time you sit an election out or throw your vote away solely because it makes you feel good, you push any hope of a movement further and further behind.

Bush set this country back 40 years in eight. And because you had some irrational idea about Obama's presidency, you're pissed that he hasn't somehow fixed the world in three. He's not going to, but he'll put us far closer and in better position of reaching our ultimate goal than any Republican. Then maybe we can finally have a foundation to build a true movement on instead of quicksand that decides to consume every hope you have because Republicans keep gaining power in part to liberal apathy.

Conservatives win because they don't give up. Liberals do. They have since the 70s rolled around. When things go south or the going gets tough, they give up and hand the conservatives another win.

You guys are part of the problem - whether you want to admit it or not.

I edited out his name because, well, I'm not THAT mean.

Hopefully you agree. I think we need to get that message out. As much as Obama might disappoint, he's still pushing this country closer to what we all want it to be and if you're going to throw all that away, screw us all over, solely on principle, well you need to be called out for it.

Right?

[nofurylike]

excellent, Drunken Irishman!!

i add that it is not only that they throw us all down that chute, but that they use the most vulnerable as shields. they are privileged enough not to be the ones in the initial direct line of fire, while the most vulnerable get it before they do. enough of the most vunerable, and the lazy, spoiled ones never do get hit full on.

thank you for writing that, for posting it to them, and for posting it for us!!

i prefer terms for them such as professional left, or, thanks to Cha, profiteering left, or radical or extremist left, because they are NOT progressives - since progress takes POSSIBLE increments - and because liberal applies to the kind-spirited, to those who do not throw the most vulnerable into the path of those attacking to protect themselves.

[Drunken Irishman]

Good point, fury. From the looks of it, this kid is pretty well off. I don't want to assume, because pictures can be deceiving, but I would be surprised if A) he came from a working class family - specifically a lower-working class family and B) he's struggling financially right now.

So it's okay for him to sit this out. It's okay for him to watch the country crumble because, as you said, he's not in the direct fire right now.

But as someone who is, someone whose family is working class and has struggled over the years to make it, as a son of a mother whose sole income now in her aging years is Social Security and my late father's veteran benefits, I can't risk Republicans getting into power. Perry's plan says it all: cut taxes for the rich on the backs of the poor. Bachmann hinted at cutting veteran benefits earlier this year. Most Republicans' tax policies would hurt the poor directly.

Since Obama's been president, there has been an increase in veteran benefits (2009) and another one set for this year or early next. There is also an expected increase in SS.

Here's one: could you imagine if Bush had privatized social security? How many hardworking Americans would be in financial ruin right now because of it?

Gore warned against it, we were fortunate Democrats stepped up against it, but had it gone through, well it's scary to think what would've happened. Yet, Moore and Maher, who I think has changed his tune a bit (I have no doubt Maher will be throwing his support behind Obama fully in '12, Moore, though? Not sure), told us there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

There was. A big difference. But because so many liberals back then felt demoralized or disillusioned with the Democratic Party, they decided the party wasn't worth their vote - who cares if we're the ones directly fucked because of it.

[nofurylike]

(10-26-2011 01:40 AM)Drunken Irishman Wrote:  But as someone who is, someone whose family is working class and has struggled over the years to make it, as a son of a mother whose sole income now in her aging years is Social Security and my late father's veteran benefits, I can't risk Republicans getting into power.

i am exactly with you on that, Drunken Irishman, exactly!

Quote:Here's one: could you imagine if Bush had privatized social security? How many hardworking Americans would be in financial ruin right now because of it?

Gore warned against it, we were fortunate Democrats stepped up against it, but had it gone through, well it's scary to think what would've happened. Yet, Moore and Maher, who I think has changed his tune a bit (I have no doubt Maher will be throwing his support behind Obama fully in '12, Moore, though? Not sure), told us there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

There was. A big difference. But because so many liberals back then felt demoralized or disillusioned with the Democratic Party, they decided the party wasn't worth their vote - who cares if we're the ones directly fucked because of it.

ABSOLUTELY!! HEAR, HEAR, ALL!!

(in that case, again, i call them PL, because they stole "liberal" and are not really liberals at all.)

but i am with you on all of that, 100%!!

thank you!!

edit to add: i keep forgetting. because they perceive themselves as leftists - anti-classists - confronting them with the fact that it is their privilege that allows them their actions (sitting out votes, extra-party voting, etc.) would be very effective, IF they would even let themselves hear anyone else. also, to demonstrate to them that they have the same "slave index" (number of slaves throughout the world providing them with their western lifestyle and products) as those they perceive themselves as "purer" than; that that "slave index" will only be further strengthened by their letting repugs have even more power ... can sometimes make a dent.

.... that their proclaiming dominionists, theocrats, to be the same as Democrats, is woefully underinformed ....

we have ways to take their language and inform them with it. IF THEY WERE CAPABLE OF HEARING!! egomaniacs are like that (moore, et al).

[Drunken Irishman]

You're right. They're not true liberals. True liberals understand what's at stake here and put that above their petty principles.

I hope goodhearted liberals don't take offense to this. Obviously I am talking about the PL whose intent is to destroy Obama.

[nofurylike]

(10-26-2011 02:08 AM)Drunken Irishman Wrote:  You're right. They're not true liberals. True liberals understand what's at stake here and put that above their petty principles.

I hope goodhearted liberals don't take offense to this. Obviously I am talking about the PL whose intent is to destroy Obama.

i think everyone understands completely, and i think most of us struggle with that same word-juggling the PL, AND the M$M, have forced on us. goodhearted liberals are very used to them having stolen that word. that is one reason why i add that side bit about the word. they have twisted an honorable concept.

their calling themselve liberals makes it very difficult. that is why we all search for alternative words!

it is most important that you care that much.
thank you, Drunken Irishman!

[DFLforever]

It's a great response. I have nothing to add but compliments.

I clicked on this guy's FB picture and noticed he calls himself a candidate for President from the 'Decadence Party.' And he's complaining about Pres Obama? What a dick.

[nofurylike]

(10-26-2011 02:21 AM)DFLforever Wrote:  It's a great response. I have nothing to add but compliments.

I clicked on this guy's FB picture and noticed he calls himself a candidate for President from the 'Decadence Party.' And he's complaining about Pres Obama? What a dick.

i have to jump in here to say:

"a candidate for President from the 'Decadence Party.' And he's complaining about Pres Obama? .... "

DFLforever!

[kahuna]

Rigtheous rant, DI. You have said what I've been saying for years to the idealogical left. THEY are responsible for the gains the repukes have made.

Let me also remind you, you had me at, hello.

[cannae1]

Well done, drunken Irishman. Your response was excellent.

I think that it may be unfortunate that we no longer have a philosophical left , that is socialism. At least, that is something to discuss.
That fellow has no philosophical basis for his 'ideas'. With these kinds of 'ideas' based upon emotion, it makes them as illogical and unthinking as the RW. That kind of mindset is no basis for behavior.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

Was it a post by Ken Layne? He hates Obama. He framed sending troops to fight the LRA as killing brown people and wrote a post complaining we weren't helping Libya and a post complaining we got involved in Libya in the same week. He was supposed to leave but can't help but use wonkette as his personal blog. My fav is when he complained putting solar panels in the desert made Obama worse on environmental issues than Bush.

[RoyGBiv]

(10-26-2011 07:21 AM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  Was it a post by Ken Layne?

THAT'S the guy.

I was sitting here reading through the thread wondering if the post referred to at Wonkette was by this guy. Just couldn't remember the name. Posts there with that name attached to them almost always make my blood boil. It's nothing but a serial whine.

[NJMaverick]

Too many people calling themselves liberals are not liberals. Liberals are about helping the less fortunate. Anarchists often pose as liberals as the majority of people have little use for the chaos they wish to bring.

[jaxx]

Drunken Irishman, let me add my thanks for that awesome retort to the whiny-assed piece of shit. I'm beginning to think many of the PL followers are some snot nosed anarchist wannabe's who read it in a book and find others who think it's a lofty ambition to put down this country and the President....by gawd they'll show us!

I'm so glad you wrote that answer to the nuts.

[Sheepshank]

Not sure if I should be flushed and angry, shaking my fists and forwarding your rant to all I know, because I'm in full agreement........or...........
Trying to wipe this silly grin off my face, because you said what I am also thinking, and now I know I'm not alone.

Well Done

[There Is No Spoon]

Very well said

I just want to pick on a couple of things, only because they have come up frequently in the recent past here.

Why tarnish the "liberal" identifier? Why was it "progressive" a year ago? Or is it "Professional Left"? Or, we could just all them what they are - nutty irrational leftists.

BTW, Michael Moore was not nearly as popular in 2000 when he supported Nader. There's a reason hardly any of us knew he supported Nader in 2000 - it's because not many people listened to him back then. Blaming him for 8 years of Bush is like being able to predict that Bush would be as big an ass hole as he was, or that 9/11 was going to happen 9 months into his presidency. Looking back in retrospect is not the same as living it in real time. Also, "Despite having supported Ralph Nader in 2000, Moore urged Nader not to run in the 2004 election so as not to split the left vote. On Real Time with Bill Maher, Moore and Maher knelt before Nader to plead with him to stay out of the race."

[RoyGBiv]

(10-26-2011 01:42 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  Why tarnish the "liberal" identifier? Why was it "progressive" a year ago? Or is it "Professional Left"? Or, we could just all them what they are - nutty irrational leftists.

'Cause that's what happens when all political activity in a society is funneled through two parties. It reduces everything to a pair of common denominators.

Same thing happens with Republicans really. I know they are not all as irrational as the teabagger crowd and not as fundamentally evil as Paul Ryan, but they all get tarnished with that brush.

In a parliamentary system, these idiots would have their own party, and the reasonable people could get on with organizing a workable government, *requiring* these minority factions to negotiate and compromise if they want anything done at all.

[mcar]

An excellent response!

[firedupdem]

Great Job!

[Oilcan]

Man I totally agree. I suppose this is what dogma looks like on the left. The professional left benefits on some bullshit moral code(s) and people buy into it to make themselves feel better. Charlatans, particularly the authors of that crap.

As for the a-hole that you addressed. (And thanks for that) There's a very good chance that he works for one of these guys:

I suspect that groups that hire people to post on left leaning sites like this are all over.

[SeattleGirl]

Preach it, brah! That was a righteous and well laid out response and I salute you!

[Joan Ruaiz]

You're pissed in that rant...and you're right!

I added my two cents! Thanks!

[Cha]

Good on ya, DI! Have you seen this?

Clooney: "I'm disillusioned by people who are disillusioned by Obama"

http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/sh...0#pid65550