?

Log in

No account? Create an account
House Democrats are FUCKING COWARDS. - Adventures in Engineering — LiveJournal
The wanderings of a modern ronin.

Ben Cantrick
  Date: 2008-04-28 16:04
  Subject:   House Democrats are FUCKING COWARDS.
Public
  Mood:so very not worth saving...
  Tags:  politics, reddit, usa not worth saving

House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war spending bill yet, a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end of the Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president’s term.

The bill, which could be unveiled as early as this week, signals that Democrats are resigned to the fact they can’t change course in Iraq in the final months of President Bush’s term. Instead, the party is pinning its hopes of ending the war on winning the White House in November.

Bay Area lawmakers, who represent perhaps the most anti-war part of the country, acknowledge the bill will anger many voters back home.

"It’s going to be a tough sell to convince people in my district that funding the war for six months into the new president’s term is the way to end the war," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus who plans to oppose the funding. "It sounds like we are paying for something we don’t want."


http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/28/8568/

It doesn't just "sound like" it, you stinking, dickless coward. IT'S EXACTLY THAT.

God I fucking hate you fucking fucks so fucking much.
Post A Comment | 14 Comments | | Link






  User: (Anonymous)
  Date: 2008-04-29 09:01 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
I admire the fire and sheer venom you can maintain when talking about politics and I can still manage a similar amount of rage from time to time, but for the most part, I'm tired and sick of it. The same, stupid shit that I see over and over and over and over and over and over and over until I just want to pop a cyanide pill.

If I displayed the same staggering ineptitude in any of the past jobs I've had, I would have had my ass fired several times over.

I have to admit, though, in this case, I think the Dems are just in a shithole. They understand that they won a lot of their power on the platform that they opposed the current war in Iraq. But, every time they try to act on their platform, the reality of the situation hits them on the head which is that they are fucked. Like we've already discussed a few times on your lj, just pulling up our stakes and leaving completely would utterly screw the Iraqis. But, not acting on their platform and the rhetoric that got them there is just going to piss off the constituents that got them there to begin with...

Ultimately, this results in the shithole they are in. They can't act on what got them there, but that causes their voters to think they are dickless cowards. Personally, I think they are much more the dickless cowards for taking impeachment off the table than for being stuck in a no-win situation with Iraq. Bush has fucked us with the Iraq war, under false pretenses and we have no choice, but to eat the shitpie that *he* made for us.

We'll impeach a president for getting his dick blown, but we won't impeach one that's led us into war, with lies, which our government's since debunked, causing how many tens of thousand of deaths while racking up our national debt to the highest it's ever been? You're fucking inhuman if that doesn't get you the slightest bit cranky regardless of your party affiliations.

Still, at the end of the day, it's same shit, different day and it gets so exhausting. Claims of change or accountability just get blown off and that's horribly, horribly discouraging. I'm on the verge of truly not caring. My conscience screams with every fiber of my being that I can't let that happen b/c apathy is a genuinely dangerous thing, in my opinion, but the sheer amount of douchebaggery is too much and I can't keep going on like this.


-J

Reply | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2008-04-29 18:47 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Like we've already discussed a few times on your lj, just pulling up our stakes and leaving completely would utterly screw the Iraqis.

And so will staying. Since the Iraqis are totally fucked either way, why not pull up stakes and at least save a few soldiers?

And maybe if we do leave completely, the UN will come in and help out the Iraqis. They'll never do that while we're there, because Dubya in his infinite genius spurned them during the original invasion. But if we're completely gone, then maybe...

Personally, I think they are much more the dickless cowards for taking impeachment off the table

Yeah, see, this is the one thing they CAN do without cutting funding for the troops. But they totally fucking refuse to do it, very much on purpose.

We'll impeach a president for getting his dick blown, but we won't impeach one that's led us into war, with lies, which our government's since debunked, causing how many tens of thousand of deaths while racking up our national debt to the highest it's ever been? You're fucking inhuman if that doesn't get you the slightest bit cranky regardless of your party affiliations.

Then 28% of America is inhuman. Because that's the percentage of people who STILL to this very day approve of the way Dubya is doing his job.

(They're not actually inhuman, of course. They're just stupid or/and evil. See The Banality Of Evil.)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2008-04-30 00:59 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
I admire the fire and sheer venom you can maintain when talking about politics

Like I said before, it's only because I never get laid. ;]
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Trevor Stone: inner maiden animated no words
  User: flwyd
  Date: 2008-04-29 23:51 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Keyword:inner maiden animated no words
I'm not sure "dickless coward" is the most effective insult to use against a female member of congress.
Reply | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2008-04-30 00:57 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
I was just thinking that myself, earlier today. Gender equality is a bitch...
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



  User: (Anonymous)
  Date: 2008-04-30 05:13 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Yeah, but honestly, it's more a figure of speech and the meaning of it is obvious. Dickless or gutless, most readers would get the meaning so the terminology is semantics.

-J
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



  User: (Anonymous)
  Date: 2008-04-30 06:25 (UTC)
  Subject:   Flip-Flopper
Who do think is the Democrat turn-coat that is really keeping impeachment off the table?

I've heard an interesting and rather plausible theory that since the Dems are holding things together by such a thin margin, that would be turn coats are holding the real issues at bay with threats of turning to the other side.

Call for impeachment, then I'll turn Republican on you and you lose the house and impeachment is off the table again.

It could be a situation where some are "stuck between a rock and a hard place", but I'm no politico so maybe you guys have a better idea.

-l
Reply | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2008-04-30 16:09 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Anyone who doesn't support the impeachment of Dubya shouldn't be in the Democratic party anyway. Nobody but the most partisan shills up on the Hill bothers to deny that Dubya's lies are impeachable. They just refuse to do anything about it.

Fuck them. They're probably the same idiot fuckheads who blindly bought into the "Iraq has WMD!!!!!1!!" hype and signed off on the invasion of Iraq. They're stupid, they're cowards, and they deserve to lose. We'll never make any progress if we allow ourselves to continue being blackmailed by the stupidest morons that modern politics has to offer.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2008-04-30 16:12 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
The whole "impeachment is off the table" bullshit is only because Pelosi wants it that way. If she and Reid would come out in favor of impeachment the rest of the stupid Democrat Congressheeple would follow. And on the Republican side, I suspect that Ron Paul (to name only one obvious examples) would like to see him impeached just as much as I do.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Ben Cantrick
  User: mackys
  Date: 2008-04-30 16:20 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
Now if you want to know the REAL reason Dubya will never be impeached...

But there’s a deeper reason why the popular impeachment movement has never taken off — and it has to do not with Bush but with the American people. Bush’s warmongering spoke to something deep in our national psyche. The emotional force behind America’s support for the Iraq war, the molten core of an angry, resentful patriotism, is still too hot for Congress, the media and even many Americans who oppose the war, to confront directly. It’s a national myth. It’s John Wayne. To impeach Bush would force us to directly confront our national core of violent self-righteousness — come to terms with it, understand it and reject it. And we’re not ready to do that.

The truth is that Bush’s high crimes and misdemeanors, far from being too small, are too great. What has saved Bush is the fact that his lies were, literally, a matter of life and death. They were about war. And they were sanctified by 9/11. Bush tapped into a deep American strain of fearful, reflexive bellicosity, which Congress and the media went along with for a long time and which has remained largely unexamined to this day. Congress, the media and most of the American people have yet to turn decisively against Bush because to do so would be to turn against some part of themselves. This doesn’t mean we support Bush, simply that at some dim, half-conscious level we’re too confused — not least by our own complicity — to work up the cold, final anger we’d need to go through impeachment. We haven’t done the necessary work to separate ourselves from our abusive spouse. We need therapy — not to save this disastrous marriage, but to end it.

To this day, the primitive feeling that in response to 9/11 we had to hit hard at "the enemy," whoever that might be, is a sacred cow. America’s deference to the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach is profound: It’s the gut belief that still drives Bush supporters and leads them to regard war critics as contemptible appeasers. This is why Bush endlessly repeats his mantra "We’re staying on the attack."

The unpleasant truth is that Bush did what a lot of Americans wanted him to. And when it became clear after the fact that Bush had lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, it made no sense for those Americans to turn on him. Truth was never their major concern anyway — revenge was. And if we took revenge on the wrong person, well, better a misplaced revenge than none at all.


http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/22/1362/


Put the blame where it belongs - squarely at the feet of the American people. THEY wanted war, justified or not. THEY re-elected Dubya a second time, after we'd been in Iraq for a year and a half and found not so much as an electric fig.

Don't let your life in Boulder fool you, the rest of the USA is not like Boulder. There are a whole lotta redneck assholes out there who love war, love death, and will believe and then repeat any lie as long as it allows them to feel big by watching some guy in a uniform mow down brown skinned people with a machine gun. That's the ugly truth about this country.

And, if it wasn't obvious, it's the reason why I'm leaving.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



  User: (Anonymous)
  Date: 2008-04-30 22:15 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
I think J got it right when talking to an ignorant supporter of our troops:
[Quote:]
"You should be grateful to the troops who are out there protecting your rights and freedoms!"

Don't know if you've been paying attention, Jack, but I have *fewer* rights now compared to, say, 10 years ago. I guess curbing personal liberties and chipping away at my rights and freedoms don't count when its your own government doing it?
[/Quote:]

It's a funny thing that people will spit at you and call you names because you *disagree* with their attitude towards the war. They obviously have a stark disconnect to the fact that over 50,000 people have died, innocent and guilty alike and we are no where nearer to finishing what we started.

Then I have to look back to the 90's when this [ http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/neuse_1982_7680910 ]was a popular shirt for my Lakewood brethren.

So YES, I would have to agree that many of our peoples are PROUD to be at war exercising the STRENGTH and DOMINANCE of the American Military. It's an ego trip that will lead to insurmountable damages and the end of what we knew to be truly "American". But that's what people want.

If I look around, I see that Freedom of Speech is the number ONE right that most people want to repress! Especially those on FOX news, they're always talking about how "this" shouldn't have been said or if you say "that" you should shut up.
How is this America?

I can see why Cindy Sheehan retired.
Sometimes, it's like talking to walls.

And so I'm inclined to think that yes, the Current DEMS are a bit spineless, but I am rather certain that the REPUBS have considerable influence over enough DEMS to initiate a re-taking over of both the House and Senate if needed. (It would really only take one or two to flip sides.) Any good gambler or businessman knows to keep at least one ace up their sleeve, and this would keep the DEMS from doing anything too drastic...it's even easier when they're a bit spineless.

Impeachment is a tough sell, politically and socially which makes ZERO sense to me.
Lying about a Blowjob = BAD
Lying about WMDs and Terrorist Connections = GOOD
WTF?!

-L



And if your interested, V was reading this for class and thought you might like it:
Globalization and Empire: The U.S. Invasion of Iraq, Free Markets, and the Twilight of Democracy by Hartnett and Stengrim
http://www.amazon.com/Globalization-Empire-Invasion-Twilight-Democracy/dp/0817315012/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209592148&sr=1-1
It's a pretty interesting look at the economic relations of this war, ie whose funding what and what they have done so far to "rebuild".

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



  User: (Anonymous)
  Date: 2008-05-01 13:11 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
It's a funny thing that people will spit at you and call you names because you *disagree* with their attitude towards the war. They obviously have a stark disconnect to the fact that over 50,000 people have died, innocent and guilty alike and we are no where nearer to finishing what we started.

And this is what is immensely mind-boggling for me. Those people who support the war brush off 50,000+ dead (both US, Iraqi and others) with euphamisms about 'the price of war' or how 'freedom isn't free'. Or, often, they just chant 'USA #1!' or 'We're #1!' (btw, this is why I find Colbert doing this so amusing - it mocks the mouth-frothing, blind devotion displayed by these kinds of people). It's appalling that, if we were talking about Boulder, *half* of the people of the city, while school's in, would be dead and these people have no real clue. I mean, if you talked to them, they would nod their heads, talk about how we're spreading democracy and making the world a safer place and fully understand the price we must pay, but they truly have no real clue about what 10 dead people, 1000, 10000 or even 50000 dead people truly and sincerely mean.

So, in a lot of ways, I am guilty of what these people do. Look at disdain and hatred at those of us who would say that this is a horrible, horrible thing that shouldn't be happening. I look at them the same way. I look at people who trade actual, living, breathing people's lives for bumper stickers and slogans. Telling me that this is the price of freedom. My freedom? No. Like I've already said before, I have fewer rights now than before. Iraqi freedom? Or saving the Kurds from Hussein? Right, that's it. How long was Hussein in power before we lifted a finger? The huge part of the gassings for Kurds occured in the late 80s. Where was our infinite fucking compassion then? If this is about freedom from tyranny and oppression, how about spending $9 billion a month on unfucking Darfur? How about spending $9 billion a month to convince China to let go of Tibet? Taiwan? Myanmar? How about we spend $9 billion a month to deal with outbreaks of fatal diseases across the globe or to feed the starving and the poor?

Don't give me your fucking self-righteous bullshit about freedom. Don't give me it's better late than never (*no one* I know of says that Saddam was a good guy or that the Kurds should suffer). Keep your hypocrisy to yourself while you practice selective, convenient compassion. Your ass didn't give a rat's ass about it until we got over there and needed a reason when our own government cut the excuses from under Bush. It's wmds! Government: But, there were no wmds. It's the ties Iraq had with AQ! Government: There were no pre-war ties. It's stopping the Kurds from genocide! The first gassings were decades ago, where were you? It's giving Iraqis democracy! Because N Koreans don't deserve democracy? It's about freedom! Because Tibetans don't deserve to be free from an oppressive, invading force occuyping their country?

Shove it, you fuckwad.


-J

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



  User: (Anonymous)
  Date: 2008-05-01 14:01 (UTC)
  Subject:   (no subject)
If I look around, I see that Freedom of Speech is the number ONE right that most people want to repress! Especially those on FOX news, they're always talking about how "this" shouldn't have been said or if you say "that" you should shut up.
How is this America?


Precisely. This contradiction always, always amuses me in a sick, twisted sort of way. This talk of 'Hey, speak against our government and you're a disloyal, traitorous, commie, pinko bastard.' In reality, this amounts more to, "Don't say anything I don't like." Closely preceeded or followed by, "America's the greatest land on earth! Freedom of speech, fuck yeah!" It makes me want to look them in the eye and ask, "Do you listen to yourself or do you just regurgitate bumper sticker slogans that have American flags as background? You do realize that you're extolling the virtues of our country, namely free speech, while expressly stating that people who have views contrary to your own shouldn't be allowed to vocalize them? You don't see an inherent contradiction here?"

How about the similarly aligned, America-love-it-or-leave-it crowd? Right, that's the solution to the problem. I don't agree with everything our government does and even though we have a system in place designed to implement change when it is deemed necessary, your solution to my problem is for me to just leave. Good job, chief. When things don't work out to your liking, don't try to find a solution, just leave. Wonderful line of reasoning there. Next time I say something you don't like, I'll just keep saying it. There's nothing you can do about it so you may as well leave.

I understand that for those who think there are massive flaws in our government and system and that they are nearly or entirely irreparable, your only recourse seems to extricate yourself from the system. As regrettable as decisions like this are to me, I understand. These people feel that the system doesn't or won't accomodate change or that the system is so far off kilter that it can't be repaired. The sad thing is that the America-love-it-or-leave-it crowd are likely to cheer and say, "Good. Finally, someone who is willing to put his money where his mouth is and get the hell out." Really? That's a good thing? That you have people who are so disenfranchised and so disillusioned with our country that they would rather leave our country rather than stay? You're going to stand there and tell me that it's a good thing that people are so disgusted with our 'great' country that they actively want to leave?

I'd much rather prefer thoughtful invididuals who are neither afraid of exercising their rights nor interested in abridging others of the same said rights rather than the ones who cheer at the merits of our country while condemning those who would engage in them.


-J

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



  User: (Anonymous)
  Date: 2008-05-01 11:28 (UTC)
  Subject:   Re: Flip-Flopper
I see what you're saying and I think that could be possible, but as Ben mentions, I'm pretty sure that there are Republicans who are rather dissatifisfied with Bush's conduct also. Bush has broken with the traditional Republican/conservative views about how government power should be limited (more so than, say, a Democrat/liberal) and how they are supposedly more interested in the preservation of individual rights rather than using government as a tool to curb liberties in favor of safety/security and the 'greater good of society' (not to imply that Republicans and conservatives don't work for the greater good of society, but as usual, their methods for the 'how' is where Repubs and Dems often butt heads about).

Bush, to the contrary, has expanded government power through curbing personal liberties. He's used fear mongering as a tool to give government agencies more power especially in the neighborhood of privacy. He's stacked the Supreme Court with controversial and conservative choices (Alito/Robert; though, to be fair, presidents have been doing this forever and, really, liberals create 'controversy' when a conservative is appointed and conservatives do the same when a liberal is appointed so by 'controversy', I mean grousing by the opposite political wing).

Of course, I'm just engaging in my usual repetitive ravings here b/c Ben's covered this in some of his previous entries which is that Bush isn't a Republican or even a conservative by traditional definitions. His actions while president are in direct contrast to Republican/conservative views and stances and that is why I think some of the more 'purist' conservatives dislike Bush. Which... is why I think a motion to impeach Bush would actually get conservative supporters (not entirely positive and, of course, I haven't performed any first hand research of my ideas, ie, I haven't called them up and asked them personally). Naturally, you're bound to have fence sitters on both sides of the aisle that are likely to jump to the other, but for the most part, I think it'd be feasible if they were truly and genuinely interested in the issue. Of course, what I've taken 3 paragraphs to explain is what Ben's managed to summarize in a line or two, but damn it, this is lj (and the intartubes) where we're supposed to be allowed to rant and rave w/o limit! This lets folks know 'where I'm coming from'.


-J
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



browse
May 2015