Book of the Month

Sign Here: Obama Haters for Obama

by PeraclesPlease 6/22/2012 - 6:41 am

Yeah, I'm rising from disrespect to contempt to despise.

Perhaps it's people telling me what I should do, but I think it's mostly his actions.

I woke up with one piece of judicial news and a non-finger-pointing assessment of our Supreme Court problem, and I was convinced: vote Obama, reverse Supreme Court.

A couple articles later, I revise equation: hold nose, sneer, vote Obama, pray the Supreme Court is enough.

Because I'm not voting Obama - I've voting for a Supreme Court that would restrain him, Romney, McCain, Santorum, whatever people-hating politician that fills that seat.

Too hard?

Well, here's Obama's DoJ that's helping Scott Bloch stay out of jail - he only destroyed the lives of whistle blowers and erased evidence of torture to obstruct a congressional investigation - what controversial in that? (call it "Faster & Furiouser"?)

The Matt Taibbi article cmaukonen links is a classic case of "punish the little guys", but because of the way they exposed themselves, major investigations should follow. But they won't. Because the big banks know how to get rid of Elliot Spitzer and Eric Scheiderman.

And even if the DoJ gets molto serioso, the Supreme Court will be waiting to reverse or dilute the sentence in a corporate/oligopoloy friendly way. 

So pull the lever for Obama this November, to get another 1 or 2 Kagans or Sotomayors - most likely Ginsberg retires, so need 2 for a 5-4 advantage - while campaigning for your local honest congressperson (Democrat or Republican or Independent - whichever one is most likely to fight for corruption investigations and force the President to execute).

[Roberts is 57, while Alito & Thomas are 62 & 63 resp. Scalia will last another decade because he's an obnoxious prick. So we're waiting for Kennedy to pass on in some fashion - seems he wants to retire already, but as Investors' Business Daily so daftly puts it:

"“Kennedy knows any departing justice will be replaced with someone who's fairly radical, and he's apparently determined to wait until that situation changes.”

Right - because nothing says radical like Elena Kagan?

Frankly, I'd vote the first presidential candidate that'd nominate a jackass for the Supreme Court, but I'm afraid Congress would approve it.]

  • Share this
  • Add new comment
  • 1879 reads

You know what, though?  Somebody had to tell Darrell Issa to go F himself.

by Michael Maiello 6/22/2012 - 1:19 pm

Well I feel better!

by Richard Day 6/22/2012 - 3:04 pm

Patient: "Doctor it hurts when I do this" 

Doctor to patient "Then don't do that" 

by Resistance 6/22/2012 - 9:43 pm (re: Richard Day)

by Resistance 6/22/2012 - 8:43 pm

I need to watch another $500 million or so in attack ads to inform me more, but I feel I'll vote for Obama so the GOP can nominate a real conservative in 2016 with the know how and the family values to subjugate us, like Joe the Plumber, Gingrich or Sarah Palin.

by NCD 6/22/2012 - 10:15 pm

Thats right; you all do the old lesser of the two evils thing, while  the wealthy flee with the treasury and we of the working class commits genocide, as we fight for the crumbs.

Believing that voting for the lesser of the two evils would somehow avert the destruction they brought upon us. 

Both parties of the elites, don't give a crap; convincing a stupid electorate , keep your eyes focused on hope, while they steal us blind, while they get all THEY  can get, from a corrupt system, before the s$#! hits the fan.

by Resistance 6/23/2012 - 2:45 am (re: NCD)

The billionaires funding Romney are Saving Our Future and you call them evil? They believe Obama is the one and only true threat to you and the job creators and free market scions of Wall Street! You and me are in the same boat with them, or at least we are floating outside their boat, or yacht, clinging on, so to speak. They like that, and they don't want it to change.

They are selflessly putting their millions on the line to save their, and your, future, or at least to make sure there are no changes in the general trajectory of your future, and their future, that is evil?

by NCD 6/23/2012 - 12:59 pm (re: Resistance)

What is it the blind dont get? 

The trajectory is set, and we're trapped. 

Deciding between two candidates, who themselves are blind or they're only interested in what they can get out of a knowingly corrupt system, before the collapse.

Why do intend to prop up the mechanism they use, to satisfy their own selfish ambitions, placing their well being ahead of others/you? 

Many are you too blind to see, empty promises is all they offer us, while they enrich themselves?

Jamie Dimon loses another 30 billion dollars and he's greeted in the peoples hallowed halls of Congress, as some hero?

Hero to whom? The money changers and their supporters, who wax fat over the abuse? Politicians who like the money too. 

A vote for either capitalist, ensures the money changers have preferential treatment, at the expense of the people. 

With many blindly saying, someday we too can be just like them.

Voting for the lesser evils of the two is better than rejecting the choices outright?

NEVER..... no matter how many times you vote for them, do they really care. It's all about them and their control over the peasant class, that enriches them.   

In by gone times, public service meant something more than seeking blind followers. 

It's always the peasant class' patriotism that is questioned, while those in high office, look to game the system for themselves .

Should you by chance, get some crumbs, that fall from their tables; they'll convince you it was the plan all along, that you should get the crumbs. 

It looks and sounds better, after you the peasants scramble for the crumbs, for them to say "it was meant to be" remember we promised: than for them to say; "it's only because we didn't catch the crumbs, before you did".

The candidates promise fulfilled, because their was no avoiding it and if it happens, convince the recipients of your generosity, your goodness. 

Better to capitalize and not waste an opportunity to keep your support for the their future.

Both capitalist parties and their supporters are greedy.  

How easy to turn a blind eye to the corruption, once you've tasted the fruits of corruption yourself.  

This system is corrupt and neither capitalist can stop it.

Saying one is better, enslaves us. to serve a corrupt capitalist system.  

Do you turn a blind eye to the corruption? "Oh well, it could be worse" 

by Resistance 6/23/2012 - 1:31 pm (re: NCD)

I forgot the name of your candidate. Could you tell me again?

by rmrd0000 6/23/2012 - 1:44 pm (re: Resistance)

I just explained how the system is so corrupt and how choices are controlled by the capitalists and their dupes, for the benefit of the capitalist. 

And your solution is; 

Vote for one of the capitalist candidates? 

The system is rigged, and voting for either one, KEEPS IT THAT WAY.

You cant overturn corruption; while defending it at the same time.

The dysfunction is not because of my support.

It is you saying, vote for the lesser of the two corrupt parties. 

Egyptian voters see through the election fraud and they are taking to the streets.  

Egypt, Iraq, Iran and other nations voters, abstaining rather than pretending they have self determination. 

Abstaining rather than being lulled into acceptance. Not propping up a system intent on enslavement to capital.   

But we're Americans, we're so much smarter? More willing to accept corruption, believing it will end on it's own? 

When the financial system collapses, we'll find out too late who enriched themselves and who supported it and we'll find both parties propped up the criminals.

One of them a party YOU supported.

Your excuse, I voted for the lesser of the two? 

Sorry; wont work rmrd.

YOU SUPPORTED the party, knowing full well they too were complicit. 

I cant tell you another candidate; the capitalists MSM has prevented and has kept us blind, to any other alternative.

Doesnt mean roll over and accept the lie of self determination.

That ideal was stolen years ago.  By two self serving parties, benefiting from the corruption.

by Resistance 6/23/2012 - 2:17 pm (re: rmrd0000)

I thought the Socialists may have selected a candidate.

by rmrd0000 6/23/2012 - 2:23 pm (re: Resistance)
Obama's fine. Joe the plumber is just the scare tactic keeping us in our cage even with gate open. The Taibbi article is amazing - it's a level of collusion I didn't think possible.
by Anonymous pp (not verified) 6/23/2012 - 2:50 am (re: NCD)

We get it, Obama's evil. Which third party candidate is your recommendation?

by rmrd0000 6/23/2012 - 10:58 am (re: Anonymous pp)
Still not reading too good, eh? I'm voting for Obama to install a Supreme Court that will protect me from Obama and the rest. His DoJ obviously won't.
by Anonymous pp (not verified) 6/23/2012 - 1:55 pm (re: rmrd0000)

I don't get the use of the anonymous tag any more than I get your position on the justices. Obama selected Kagan. Are you saying Kagan is the radical who will stop Obama?

Are you saying that you are shocked that Justice Kennedy considers some one like Kagan a radical, or are you amazed that Obama would consider Kagan a radical appointee?

In previous discussions, I got the impression that you did not think the Supreme Court appointees were a strong enough motive to vote for Obama.

by rmrd0000 6/23/2012 - 2:04 pm (re: Anonymous pp)
Im on a mobile fon and not messing w login. 2 more Kagens would reverse the Alito swing. I changed my mind- congress and pres are complicit, scotus is going rogue, scptid easiest to reverse
by Anonymous pp (not verified) 6/23/2012 - 2:43 pm (re: rmrd0000)

OK, I get it SCOTUS is important.

is scptid supposed to be SCOTUS?

by rmrd0000 6/23/2012 - 2:51 pm (re: Anonymous pp)
Yes, little keys typed fast create major typos
by Anonymous pp (not verified) 6/23/2012 - 4:56 pm (re: rmrd0000)

I think people who think he's advocating voting against Obama are missing it.  He's saying he dislikes lots about Obama, but wants the Justices Obama will pick much more than those Romney would pick, because they are potentially effective checks on some of the things he doesn't like (or perhaps even because they will be less activist in undoing laws he might like passed, who knows).

by Articleman 6/23/2012 - 1:27 pm

Seems convoluted. If someone is in a cage and the door is open, walk out. 

If you truly  dislike the extent of the use of drones, and so despise the handling of the unemployment issue, etc, walk out of the cage.

If you are voting the same way that Obama voters will but constantly suggesting why Obama is such a failure, what is the point? In the end, you are no different than an Obamabot.. If you feel caged, free yourself.

 

by rmrd0000 6/23/2012 - 1:42 pm (re: Articleman)

We only get two choices in America.  There are two cages, with a gate connecting them.  You can walk back and forth between the cages, but there is no way out.

by Dan Kervick 6/25/2012 - 2:35 pm (re: rmrd0000)

I think the third choice is to withdraw and complain, and the fourth choice is to actively work to change the system.

by Donal 6/25/2012 - 2:48 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

Fifth could be "withdraw and actively work to change the system"? Think that one's been used by quite a few revolutionaries.

by PeraclesPlease 6/25/2012 - 3:02 pm (re: Donal)

The fourth choice is not an alternative to the first two - it's something you do in addition to making the first choice.  People should vote for the lesser of the two evils on election day.  But if people are interested in using their limited time and political energies to change the system, then they should avoid wasting too much time reading the system's newspapers, watching the system's approved cable news services, and otherwise wallowing in the political infotainment of presidential politics.

by Dan Kervick 6/25/2012 - 4:57 pm (re: Donal)

I can respect people that make the fourth choice alone. 

by Donal 6/25/2012 - 7:42 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

Give them some straw and they can weave baskets, they'll at least show an accomplishment. 

Don't become a journalist in Mexico, if you're advocating change. 

These guys, that run the show, don't need anybody messing with a good thing.

by Resistance 6/25/2012 - 7:56 pm (re: Donal)
Yes, you got it exactly as i meant. SCOTUS activism since 2000 has been outrageous, esp. since Alito/Roberts - ruling on points that havent been presented or argued.
by Anonymous pp (not verified) 6/23/2012 - 2:02 pm (re: Articleman)

I do think we have to be clear here about Fast and Furious.  Obama is asserting privilege over documents pertaining to his communications with Justice about Issa's BS investigation.  Previous presidents, including Republicans, have invoked this right on much shakier ground.  I hate privilege instinctively, but I don't expect the president to unilaterally disarm.

by Michael Maiello 6/23/2012 - 9:06 pm

Apparently Issa admitted on Fox News with one of the three stooges, that Republicans thought Fast and Furious was an Obama ploy to limit or more closely monitor gun sales in the US. Scores of cops are gunned down every year in the US, and the Republicans fight any restrictions on guns, assault weapons, and high velocity body armor piercing cop killing bullets. Republicans care as much about a border agent getting gunned down as they cared about sending thousands of Americans to die in Iraq with the sole goal of re-electing GWB.  They only want to use the dead as a political props.

by NCD 6/23/2012 - 9:25 pm (re: destor23)

They only want to use the dead as a political props.

Who sold the guns to the Mexican cartel, so they could kill one another and the reason given for this stupidity, is so we could track and record the killings, FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

Could it be "Look folks, the people of Mexico must be given asylum, because there's a war going on"?

With weapons supplied by the USA? 

Reminding me of some Western movie, where they give guns and whiskey to the red skins; they'll in turn attack the settlers and that 'll be the pretense, to set in motion, a nefarious plan.

Maybe those guns, would have been used to kill a left leaning priest, really setting off another firestorm. between the left and the right wing elements?  

America doesn't need a socialist government aligned with the  radical bloc of Chavez and Castro  right up next to its border?  

So maybe it's better to arm your champions? 

Why shouldn't the American people know, what our government is up to, in our name? 

Issa may be an ass, but there are plenty more of them in Washington.  Maybe in the DOJ too?

by Resistance 6/23/2012 - 10:09 pm (re: NCD)
The cartel wars are a serious problem. Limiting access to weapons is one way of helping. Sometimes clever ideas go wrong, but I dont think this one changed the landscape much. But Issa is a polital animal - he just wants to score cheap points.
by Anonymous pp (not verified) 6/24/2012 - 2:33 am (re: Resistance)

Besides, "guns don't kill people, people do". Gun rights folks have a major piece of hypocrisy here, saying a few loose guns made a difference. They don't want guns tracked at all - free flow.

by PeraclesPlease 6/26/2012 - 1:33 am (re: Anonymous pp)

Obama is asserting privilege over documents pertaining to his communications with Justice about Issa's BS investigation.

What if it's determined that he said something in line with this 

"Do what you need to do, but just make sure the Socialist movement in Mexico is destroyed. No unions, no workers rights. NO LAND REFORM MOVEMENT 

http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpPublications)/9B503BAF4856E96980256B66003E0622?OpenDocument

We need a capitalist partner in Mexico." 

Wouldn't you like to know the scheme and who our government (in our name) backs in the equality struggle? 

Before we are told  "they hate us, because"

by Resistance 6/23/2012 - 10:26 pm (re: destor23)
As Chairman of Obama haters for Paul ( Also Trotskyites for Paul- I wear many hats), May we not as a fallback position envision a lame duck response to a Romney win? Perhaps not so dramatic as my little opera buffo scenario, But still a maneuver to replace the aging liberals with some younger blood We are guaranteed to see the nuclear option in any case if there is a minority democratic senate filibustering President Romney's replacements of Ginsberg and Breyer during his term. Why not force the issue now when you can help us ?
by jollyroger 6/28/2012 - 12:50 am

Latest Comments

more