Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Once again...

To all the Obama-voting librals who voted for Obama in the primaries because they thought Obama was a liberal and would govern as a liberal: You're a moron and should STFU. I was pointing out as early as January 2008 that Obama's policies were liberal only compared to those of George W. Bush, but crap, Ghenghis Khan's policies would have been liberal compared to George W. Bush. In January 2008 I pointed out that Obama's health care plan was basically a subsidy for insurance companies, that Obama's views on topics such as gay marriage, gays in the military, the death penalty, and so forth were not likely to be any different than John McCain's views on such, and that Obama's strategy regarding Iraq and Afghanistan was to be George W. Bush, only smarter. I advised you then that if you wanted a real liberal President, you should vote for Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards in the primaries, the only real liberals who were running (albeit John Edwards later sorely disappointed me by hiking the Appalachian trail with a hottie).

But did you listen? NOOOOOooo. You took a fundamentally conservative black middle class politician -- and if you know the black middle class like I do, you know that they're VERY conservative about everything except government assistance for minorities and the poor -- and put him into office because he was, well, black, and black means liberal, right? To those of you who voted for Obama because you wanted a sane, basically conservative politician in charge, congratulations, that's what you got. For those who made the racist assumption that because Obama is black, that automatically made him a liberal, and voted for him based on that racist assumption rather than the fundamentally conservative contents of his web site and speeches: Congratulations, you're a moron. Report for duty on the Failboat immediately for treatment for Obama Derangement Syndrome, which, apparently, afflicts left-wing morons just as much as it afflicts right-wing morons.

-- Badtux the Derangement-Observin' Penguin

13 comments:

  1. Okay,

    I'm a moran.

    But out of the Clintons, Barack and Michelle, I liked Michelle.

    So sue me. I still like Michelle, but she does not have the pull I thought she did.

    I would have voted for Dennis.

    I will.

    S

    Congratulations, you're a moron.
    __________________

    ReplyDelete
  2. I did vote for Kucinich - and not because he's from Ohio, and not because he's married to a hot redhead. He's a real Librull.

    The late* Sen. Edwards was my 2nd choice. But that was before.

    I really wanted to have a first lady named Elizabeth. (sigh.)

    But when it came to the general election, I voted for Obama, mainly because he not a Rupugnicant. He's a black Clinton** -- rightish-centrist, pro-business practical politician.

    I amn't know moran.

    Cheers!
    JzB the Ha!-exactly-what-I-expected trombonist

    *As in dead politically
    ** Except for the Applechain Trail part

    ReplyDelete
  3. The notion of political 'Right' and 'Left', always a doubtful one in my view, wanders like Alice into Wonderland in your post. Still, at least we all know where you are standing on the circle.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Duff, a liberal would be nationalizing the banks and taxing away the bonuses they paid themselves from taxpayer money, not subsidizing them. A liberal would be proposing jobs programs that included direct government hiring of workers for public works projects like FDR did, not a jobs program that basically consists of tax cuts for businesses to employ people they're already employing. A liberal would be proposing Medicare For All like Truman did, not the subsidy for the health insurance industry that Obama proposed in January 2008 and that he has no problem signing today if the current Senate bill reaches his desk. Obama is a George W. Bush style war-mongering business-welfare-providing conservative, only smarter.

    And if you now make the moronic argument that George W. Bush was *not* conservative, I will delete any comment where you make that argument. All viewpoints are welcome here, but posts that are simply stupidity where you try to claim that black is white and the sky is a fine color of puce despite all evidence to the contrary are too stupid for me to allow on this blog.

    - Badtux the "FDR was liberal" Penguin

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually, I voted for Obama because I figured he'd be a pragmatist, which this country seriously needs.

    George W. Bush, in addition to his other unpleasant traits, wanted to turn the US into a big lab for ideas dreamed up by clueless movement conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I remember that and since I had absolutely no expectations except more of the same I have not been disappointed.

    The proof you are correct is in Obama's inaction. If he had taken a stance on single payer or withdrawal from our wars a few speech's would have made the difference.

    It is getting worse and look out in 010 because these puswads we put in office are failing big time and the nutters are going to roll right over them.

    Representative government is a thing of the past. Those in congress represent the rich and powerful and it's not going to change!

    No one is really a moron here just because they were blinded by hope after the debacle that preceded the election. Maybe like religion believers in the sense they want to believe so badly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I did vote for Edwards in the primaries. Not that it matters here in Washington fricking state. But yes, disappointed IS me....while it may be better than Bush, it is sure as hell not the change I was hoping to see.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually Tux, one can make a very good case that W is not a conservative.

    If you believe Kirk, conservatism is a mind set, not a set of policies, but it does imply certain principles. First, I believe an American conservative would have great respect, if not reverence, for the Constitution. C's would be fiscally responsible (open to many interpretations, not one of which could include Bushynomics.) One could go on at great length about discretionary wars and pseudo-nation building, but you get the point. This is why thoughtful conservatives like Colin Powell, Chis Buckley, and Andrew Bacevich backed Obama and not McCain. The Repugnicant Bush-man party has sailed off the rational political map into Greedoguanoland

    Bush, like his neo-con backers, has no discernible political philosophy, beyond avarice and contempt for ordinary people. He
    is an elitist, and an international corporatist, and therefore a traitor. He should be convicted and executed. And that is without even considering the war crimes.

    I would probably disagree with a real conservative on almost every policy issue. But I would respect whatever intellectual honesty was demonstrated. Alas, Bush had none, nor do Republians.

    Now I must go hug a
    squid.

    Cheers!
    JzB the flaming squid-hugger trombonist

    ReplyDelete
  9. I shall take advantage of your good nature and risk "the unkindest cut of all"!

    The terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are now simply as meaningless as 'Left' and 'Right'. Politics does not stretch along a line from one side to the other, it is a circle, upon the circumference of which people station themselves roughly where appropriate . Thus, for example, you can have fiscal conservatives who believe in libertarian social policies. Of course, over on side of the circumference the extreme 'Left' (to use your jargon) and the extreme 'Right' join hands.

    Stretching your tolerence to its limits, in my view Bush was a conservative nationalist (hurrah!) and a fiscal disaster (boo!).

    There, that wasn't too painful, was it?

    ReplyDelete
  10. David -

    Not painful, but not too sensible either. The idea that moving to right eventually brings you around to the left is just silly.

    You have entirely the wrong model.

    Consider three orthogonal axes. One is traditional economic left to right, left being planned economy, right being lassez faire capitalism. The kind of regulated capitalism that came out of the new deal was somewhere toward the center-left. Second is authoritarian to maximum personal freedom, which might be anarchy -
    I haven't explored that area carefully. Third is Theocracy*, from absolute separation of church and state to the Taliban imposing Shari, to use a real life example. In this model, Bush is far right LFC, extremely authoritarian, and highly theocratic. The claims that Bush was a fascist are highly credible.

    I put Obama economically right of center (a big disappointment), moderately high on authoritarianism (the biggest disappointment), and a bit on the religious side of neutral (a requirement in American politics.)

    Those who think Obama is not much different from Bush are missing nuances. But he is in no way any kind of Liberal.

    Cheers!
    JzB the analytical trombonist

    * Upon further review, this is really about thought control. Religion is one way to go at it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think most people were voting for Obama so much as they were voting against McCain. That's the biggest problem with the TwoPartyMonopoly...and also the biggest reason the Powers-that-Be want to keep it in place. Nothing is gonna change unless folks start voting for third/forth parties.

    And if Bush was truly a "conservative" then what do we call those folks who are truly against BigGov't intrusions in our public lives, in favor of lower taxes and less spending, and wants to see the War on Drugs be ended? Those ain't exactly "liberal" opinions...are they?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Color Purple -

    I was absolutely voting against McCain - or, as I saw it, the third Bush term, cuz nothin' was changin'. But that's only the 2nd biggest problem with the two party system. The first biggest is that enormous corporations have enough money to buy them both, hence the current state of corporatocracy.

    In the current system 3rd/4th parties have no chance. You need a parliamentary system for a minor party to do anything other than the diametric opposite what it intends to. Cf: Ross Perot or Ralph Nader.

    what do we call those folks who are truly against BigGov't intrusions in our public lives etc, etc

    I'll set aside the gratuitous leading tones in your question, and say they are Libertarians. These are the dangerous idiots who are under the sway of Ayn Rand, and think they are right because they are logical. The error they can't recognize is that when you start from a flawed premise, logic will not lead to a correct solution. Computer guys used to say, "Garbage in, garbage out," but I haven't heard that in many, many years.

    Oh, and BTW, less gov't intrusion and ending the war on drugs are absolutely liberal ideas. Sorry about being rude, but you really are ignorant.

    Cheers!
    JxB the older and wiser trombonist

    ReplyDelete

Ground rules: Comments that consist solely of insults, fact-free talking points, are off-topic, or simply spam the same argument over and over will be deleted. The penguin is the only one allowed to be an ass here. All viewpoints, however, are welcomed, even if I disagree vehemently with you.

WARNING: You are entitled to create your own arguments, but you are NOT entitled to create your own facts. If you spew scientific denialism, or insist that the sky is purple, or otherwise insist that your made-up universe of pink unicorns and cotton candy trees is "real", well -- expect the banhammer.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.