sparkling husband primitive treats them harshly

[franksolich]

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8839482

Oh my.

Karmadillo (1000+ posts)      Thu Jul-29-10 12:37 PM
Original message
 
Is it true? Do we give Democrats a pass when we'd trash Repubicans for the same thing?

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003346.html

Sympathy for the Devils
July 29, 2010

A few years ago I was talking about U.S. foreign policy with an editor at an ultra-fancy New York magazine. To my surprise, he explained that he definitely wanted the U.S. government to keep running the planet for our benefit (as he understood "us" and "benefit"). But he was unhappy that the Bush administration was so in your face about it to the rest of the world. That, he thought, was a real mistake.

And now, with Obama in office, for the first time in my life I understand the seething fury of the professional Republican class. From the outside, it seems crazy; what do these rich, powerful people have to be angry about? Either they're in office running a global empire, or they're formally out of power but making $850,000 a year as BP's Vice President for Public Relations.

But it does make sense. When in office, Democratic presidents do almost exactly the same things as Republicans. However, while carrying out the wars, torture, coups, etc., Democrats use flowery rhetoric about the Brotherhood of All Mankind, while receiving endless hosannas about their moral beauty from Barbara Streisand and the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

Here's how Mary Kate Cary puts it, in a column called "Where is the Anti-War Left on Afghanistan?" She was a speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and now is some kind of PR hack:

Despite the fact that President Obama has tripled our troop presence in Afghanistan and the Democratic Congress approved $33 billion more for what is now America's longest-running war, there's been an eerie silence from the left—no "die-ins," no beating drums, no anti-Obama protestors dressed in skeleton costumes. No one protesting the president's every appearance.

Maybe the antiwar left only protests when Republican presidents are in office. Maybe it's not about Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, it was only about George Bush. Maybe for the antiwar left, it's not about pacifism or soldiers' lives or even what's in our national interest. Maybe it's just about Republicans.

more...

Subdivisions  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jul-29-10 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. Yes. It's absolutely true.

Llewlladdwr (818 posts)        Thu Jul-29-10 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
 
2. Unquestionably.

VMI Dem (1000+ posts)      Thu Jul-29-10 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
 
3. No doubt about it.

MadHound  (1000+ posts)      Thu Jul-29-10 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
 
4. That would be a big YES WE DO!

Let's just take Gitmo. If Bush had dragged his feet as much as Obama is doing, after promising to shut it down, we would be livid. If Bush had continued to encroach on our civil liberties the way Obama is doing, we would be outraged. If Bush had conducted the wars as Obama is doing, dragging them out indefinitely, then we would be in the streets. And so much more.

But hey, it's a guy with a big D behind his name in the Oval Office, so apparently everything is just fine

Hell Hath No Fury  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jul-29-10 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
 
8. Oh HELL yes!

We see it every single day right here on this board.

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jul-29-10 12:50 PM
THE SPARKLING HUSBAND PRIMITIVE, #05 TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009
Response to Original message

17. Personally, I treat them more harshly because they should KNOW better. But some people ........

..... will not only tolerate it, but tell us that a shit sandwich is fillet mignon and pre-oil-catastrophe Gulf Shrimp.

Those people would be wrong and those people would be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

As to the quotee in that article, Mary Kate Cary, she's stirring shit soup. Her only concern is fomenting civil war on the left. She has NO concern for the left or the antiwar people. She just wants to widen the rift. Get a clue, Mary Kate: the disharmony on the left accrues not one whit to you, you ****ing pea brain.

flyarm  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jul-29-10 12:53 PM
THE LEONA HELMSLEY OF DUmmieland
Response to Original message

22. OHHHH absolutely!..without one iota of doubt!

Tailormyst (1000+ posts)     Thu Jul-29-10 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
 
24. It's done every hour of every day on this site

NJmaverick  (1000+ posts)      Thu Jul-29-10 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
 
34. Get back to me when President Obama starts two needless wars

[thundley4]

Karmadillo (1000+ posts)           Thu Jul-29-10 12:37 PM
Original message
Is it true? Do we give Democrats a pass when we'd trash Repubicans for the same thing?
   
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003346.html

Sympathy for the Devils
July 29, 2010

A few years ago I was talking about U.S. foreign policy with an editor at an ultra-fancy New York magazine. To my surprise, he explained that he definitely wanted the U.S. government to keep running the planet for our benefit (as he understood "us" and "benefit"). But he was unhappy that the Bush administration was so in your face about it to the rest of the world. That, he thought, was a real mistake.

And now, with Obama in office, for the first time in my life I understand the seething fury of the professional Republican class. From the outside, it seems crazy; what do these rich, powerful people have to be angry about? Either they're in office running a global empire, or they're formally out of power but making $850,000 a year as BP's Vice President for Public Relations.

But it does make sense. When in office, Democratic presidents do almost exactly the same things as Republicans. However, while carrying out the wars, torture, coups, etc., Democrats use flowery rhetoric about the Brotherhood of All Mankind, while receiving endless hosannas about their moral beauty from Barbara Streisand and the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

Here's how Mary Kate Cary puts it, in a column called "Where is the Anti-War Left on Afghanistan?" She was a speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and now is some kind of PR hack:

Despite the fact that President Obama has tripled our troop presence in Afghanistan and the Democratic Congress approved $33 billion more for what is now America's longest-running war, there's been an eerie silence from the left—no "die-ins," no beating drums, no anti-Obama protestors dressed in skeleton costumes. No one protesting the president's every appearance.

Maybe the antiwar left only protests when Republican presidents are in office. Maybe it's not about Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, it was only about George Bush. Maybe for the antiwar left, it's not about pacifism or soldiers' lives or even what's in our national interest. Maybe it's just about Republicans.

more...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8839482

Subdivisions   (1000+ posts)             Thu Jul-29-10 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes. It's absolutely true. n/t
   
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Llewlladdwr (818 posts)             Thu Jul-29-10 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Unquestionably. NT
   
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
VMI Dem (1000+ posts)           Thu Jul-29-10 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. No doubt about it.
   
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MadHound   (1000+ posts)           Thu Jul-29-10 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. That would be a big YES WE DO!
   
Let's just take Gitmo. If Bush had dragged his feet as much as Obama is doing, after promising to shut it down, we would be livid. If Bush had continued to encroach on our civil liberties the way Obama is doing, we would be outraged. If Bush had conducted the wars as Obama is doing, dragging them out indefinitely, then we would be in the streets. And so much more.

But hey, it's a guy with a big D behind his name in the Oval Office, so apparently everything is just fine

Most agree their hypocrites.

Radical Activist   (1000+ posts)             Thu Jul-29-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. The Senate blocked Obama's request to close Gitmo.
   
Edited on Thu Jul-29-10 12:54 PM by Radical Activist
I'm not sure why some people are eager to forget that the Senate blocked funding to close it and blocked use of the US prison most of the remaining prisoners would have been transferred to. Maybe people aren't livid at Obama because they're informed about what happened.

And whose party runs congress?

Oh, that's right !

MadHound   (1000+ posts)           Thu Jul-29-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. That's where you're making a mistake,
   
Obama didn't "request" Gitmo to be closed, he issued and executive order, and in it originally stated that it would be closed within a year. So far he has managed to drag his feet on the closing to the point where six months after his EO, we're still stuck with Gitmo.

This isn't on the Senate, this is on Obama.

Radical Activist   (1000+ posts)             Thu Jul-29-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. The Senate specifically barred use of any funds to close Gitmo.
   
That's how they responded to Obama's executive order. It would be an illegal violation of his Constitutional powers for Obama to close Gitmo right now. It's not a case of Obama dragging his feat. It's yet another case of the US Senate being the main obstacle to progressive goals.

MadHound   (1000+ posts)           Thu Jul-29-10 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Yes, a Democratic Senate at that!
   
In a 90-6 vote, Senate Dems voted with 'Pugs to deny that funding. Sorry, but if Obama can't get the Senate Dems to go along with him, at best then he is a weak and ineffective president.

Oregone (1000+ posts)           Thu Jul-29-10 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. This is just a right-wing media meme you are helping to push
   
We cannot give Democrats a pass on anything, because they are too infallible to commit any wrongs in the first place. What you may see as error is masterful orchestrated political strategy aimed to produce the most progressive solution possible over some given span of time.

Is that sarcasm from a DUmmie that I'm seeing?

[thundley4]

Frank, can you delete this. http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,47008.0.html

I brought it over at the same time.

[franksolich]

Frank, can you delete this. http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,47008.0.html

I brought it over at the same time.

Merged, not deleted.

Excresence happens; it's cool.

You're a good man, a great man, thundley4, sir.

[Karin]

Man, Stinky's got a foul mouth.  Makes him seem so juvenile.  But at least he doesn't post like the Magistrate.  I simply cannot stomach that guy's posts.  Sets my teeth on edge. 

If they recognize their hypocrisy, why do they continue to do it, and in such an obvious way? 

[Ballygrl]

Oh WOW! Progressives actually admitting their hypocrisy.