The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[Oakvale]

Politico on Obama's 2012 prospects -

I will take it a step further: The only Kerry/Gore state that is ironclad is Hawaii.

[Oakvale]

This kind of reminds me of the time someone (Wonkish?) claimed that Obama was further to the left than Dilma Rousseff.

Dilma Rousseff may have been a commie revolutionary when she was a kid, but that isn't what she is today. Barack Obama is to the left of Dilma today. She is for privatization of various government services Barack has never once been in support of that. In Brazil she is pro expansion of energy even when its dirty energy on the contrary Barack blocked Keystone and shutdown off shore drilling for the better part of a year by executive fiat. She also respects contract law, with Barack he had his administration goons go out to the GM bond holders and threaten them if they didn't accept the high hair cut Barack demanded(something many poor elderly people were counting on and where they lost a lot of money by force) also he advocated the ability of a judge to void a mortgage contract. You're talking about a woman who frequently got into almost violent fights with people who advocated a statist method of fixing everything when she was a bureaucrat. She is pro-life and Barack was the only Democrat in Illinois to vote to force doctors to kill a fetus that was still alive after a botched abortion. She is anti gay marriage. I'm pretty sure Barack is pro civil union.

Ultimately, Dilma Rousseff is a welfare capitalist who is conservative on social issues. Barack Obama isn't a welfare capitalist because he wants the state to administer everything he can land his hands on and that is completely different than Dilma. Furthermore, he is to left on social issues. So yeah this discussion isn't even close.

And by the way I don't expect a 11 year old who focuses entirely on the fact that she was a guerrilla about 30 years ago to get into this level of detail.

The brilliant thing about this is that not only is there someone who thinks that Barack Obama is more left-wing than Dilma Rousseff, but that he doesn't even consider it close.

[Oakvale]

This kind of reminds me of the time someone (Wonkish?) claimed that Obama was further to the left than Dilma Rousseff.

Dilma Rousseff may have been a commie revolutionary when she was a kid, but that isn't what she is today. Barack Obama is to the left of Dilma today. She is for privatization of various government services Barack has never once been in support of that. In Brazil she is pro expansion of energy even when its dirty energy on the contrary Barack blocked Keystone and shutdown off shore drilling for the better part of a year by executive fiat. She also respects contract law, with Barack he had his administration goons go out to the GM bond holders and threaten them if they didn't accept the high hair cut Barack demanded(something many poor elderly people were counting on and where they lost a lot of money by force) also he advocated the ability of a judge to void a mortgage contract. You're talking about a woman who frequently got into almost violent fights with people who advocated a statist method of fixing everything when she was a bureaucrat. She is pro-life and Barack was the only Democrat in Illinois to vote to force doctors to kill a fetus that was still alive after a botched abortion. She is anti gay marriage. I'm pretty sure Barack is pro civil union.

Ultimately, Dilma Rousseff is a welfare capitalist who is conservative on social issues. Barack Obama isn't a welfare capitalist because he wants the state to administer everything he can land his hands on and that is completely different than Dilma. Furthermore, he is to left on social issues. So yeah this discussion isn't even close.

And by the way I don't expect a 11 year old who focuses entirely on the fact that she was a guerrilla about 30 years ago to get into this level of detail.

The brilliant thing about this is that not only is there someone who thinks that Barack Obama is more left-wing than Dilma Rousseff, but that he doesn't even consider it close.

LOL the hilarious part is that you completely gave up any attempt to defend your position. Again don't expect a 11 year old kid(like you) to ever go into any detail.

Look Wonkish, if you make a post that's just plain silly there's no real point in anyone trying to refute it. Clearly you've decided that Obama's a socialist - more left-wing than the socialist President of Brazil, even - and nothing's going to change your mind. I lack the bug that drives some people to attempt arguing with you, and don't have the time or energy to engage with this third-rate hackery even if I did.

Incidentally, I may be ten years old (or whatever age you've decided I am) but at least I don't post elaborate fantasies in which I'm employed as a highly-paid financial wizard. *cough*

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know, I can't believe it. I'm so embarassed. Truely this is an episode of self-immolation for the ages.

EDIT: From weeks of observation - a template for every single Wonkish post, for public use:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Oakvale]

I apologise for posting Wonkish's post in the thread. While I do feel it was a ridiculous suggestion - incidentally, I wasn't debating him, although I would agree that had I been it would have been bad form to do so - I should have known it would ignite a sh!tstorm.

For what it's worth, I'd also like to apologise personally to Wonkish. While I do feel he can be rude at times - just my opinion - that's no excuse for me to respond insultingly. Sorry.

[Oakvale]

I apologise for posting Wonkish's post in the thread. While I do feel it was a ridiculous suggestion - incidentally, I wasn't debating him, although I would agree that had I been it would have been bad form to do so - I should have known it would ignite a sh!tstorm.

For what it's worth, I'd also like to apologise personally to Wonkish. While I do feel he can be rude at times - just my opinion - that's no excuse for me to respond insultingly. Sorry.

Apology accepted and I'll extend my apologies for being a little rude to you at times. I try to only be blunt and harsh to A) comments that leave the opportunity, but also B) to posters who act in ways that deserve it. Given the comment above I can safely say I misjudged you. So...

Your getting added to my nice poster list. I'll try to refrain from any rudeness to you in the future and if I mistakenly respond too harshly to one of your posts let me know.

And I wish you a Merry Christmas!

Thanks, you too!

[Oakvale]

This thread has been violated beyond any recognition.

It's a Christmas miracle!

[Oakvale]

Should someone mention to Politico that there was a thing called the Iran hostage crisis, or would that just be confusing?

[Oakvale]

Come on guys this whole sex scandal is a very touchy subject, let's not open a new wound into an already widespread problem.

i'm going to hell

In all seriousness, he was a great ball coach. I don't think this one incident should diminish what he did for the Penn State football program. Did he handle the situation wrong? Of course. But let that be a separate issue. The man took over the program with no experience and brought it to national prominence. He was unfortunately plagued by this scandal and now people are gonna remember him as "that guy that..."

It's a shame, in my opinion.

Jesus Christ, those are both really awful posts...

[Oakvale]

Bumping for the worst post I've read in months -

I'm not concerned about the very poor, and neither are most Americans.  They give money to charities, in the hope that it helps the few who have encountered tragedy in their lives.  The rest?  Largely responsible for their own situation.

Americans are for lifting up the deserving and helping those who face difficulties.  People who suck at life?  They can drown.

[Oakvale]

one of the rare stupid things on Family Guy

[Oakvale]

This rather belongs in the Utterly Sickening Posts Sh*tmine, but for the lack of such thread I got to post it there.

The first two were positive events.

Click for context.

While nothing will cause lefties to spaz out more than suggesting Allende/the Spanish Republicans/Sandinistas were worse than their opposition (why only things happening in Spanish-speaking countries cause spaz-out reactions I don't know), the fact remains that the Latin left, especially of the Commie variety, especially of the pro-Soviet Commie variety at the height of the Cold War, were and are not very nice people.  If you don't believe that, I'll invite you to move to Cuba.  Since they'll put you up in the relative luxury accomodations reserved for Useful Idiots, you should subsequently renounce your European citizenships and get yourself arrested for a real representative taste.  I'm sure you'll love it.  They have nice weather and excellent cigars!

Edit:  Addendum:  Latin politics is not good guys and bad guys, it's generally bad guys and worse guys.  Pinochet was very bad but far better than what would have happened otherwise.  Perhaps saying the coup was a "positive event" was a bit too breezy, more like a non-negative event.

This only demonstrates your utterly ignorance about Latin-American politics. And that you're nothing but an imbecile. Who else was a commie, Goulart? Well, If those 'commies' had won, there would be the rising of a rural middle-class, which would avoid heavy rural flight at the 70's (probably the most important influence on southern-american underdevelopment on the following decades) and foment national industry, making an inner force for autonomous development. That was the whole matter. There, here or in Argentina, the Andes, anywhere in the region. Lula's success is only and entirely based on a new version of this reading. We would all have achieved 4 decades earlier what Brazil is achieving now, alone.
Let me tell you something, that being an imbecile you surely have no clue. These countries were not a Caribbean island run by US controlled mobsters. Even if TEH KOMMIUNIEESTZ had reached power and installed a soviet regime (something that only someone completely ignorant about what was the Latin-american 60's and 70's left or even the hardcore left would imagine. And don't come with Cuba, Castro wasn't even a commie before the USA positioned itself against him neither Cuba was a mess before the eastern block debacle - It was actually the Latin-american country with the best achievements, around that time) China would be the comparison. The soviets were less interested in such a development than the USA.

The struggle wasn't between 'commies' and 'non-commies'. It was between autonomists who assumed this position based on emancipation leanings (the main 'commie' speech was that we were never really independent / free) and an ancient elite whose power was based on being the foremen of great powers interests. It wasn't about central planning. It was about anti-imperialism.
We're talking here about people whose economical interest (poor people interested physicians, inner market oriented farmers, urban middle class professionals) was the existence of autochtonous populations with consumer's power. There are few things more imbecilic than the double-standard a-historical a-geographical bullsh**t you'd written.
Sure, if you believe that the sake of international capital based economy (which is conceptually linked to imperialist control, always - and I don't really care about what you think about the term 'imperialism', It is a historically based and valid geopolitical concept) is above anything else, than I must agree that a good guys/bad guys debate is pointless here. But to anyone who believes on humanism, people's empowerment and emancipation, democratic control of your own future and other political concepts which are important to non-imbecils, than, pal, It was a good guys / bad guys opposition. And those 'commies' were the good guys. They were the ones making the defence of freedom around.

The most amusing thing here is the undying tentative of putting the blame on those who were taken from democratically chosen positions. Even after debate over debate (on academical conditions, surely - I really don't care about what hacks have to say) demonstrates It's pure feces. This only sickens me. "Allende would make a self-coup! Goulart would make a self-coup!". F**k!!! How people are imbeciloid enough to not laugh on this!
What if Allende nationalized the whole freaking economy?? He was elected to do It, imbecile. Presidentialism is not parliamentarism. Any impeachment based on opposition to these policies are just grotesquely antidemocratic. Once democratic institutions are preserved and people can overturn what was done (which is something, alas, that our neoliberal fake-democracies are unable to provide, vide Greece), I'm sorry to inform, this is democracy. The rule from the people, by the people and to the people.

The second most amusing thing (and It always tells a lot to me) is that every time I read/listen to this specific bullsh**t - Chilean 73's coup - the round's coup defender is always a self proclaimed 'libertarian'. This only demonstrates how fake are the great share of these 'freedomers'. It's clearly not about freedom, It's about economics. That same brand of imbeciles defends another islander dictatorship as the quintessential model for society's organization.

Anyway, don't bother answering this. Any imbecile defender of Pinochet's coup is automatically on my ignore list. And, to the other guys, sorry about the rant. I just cannot stay calm on the whole matter of the XXth century's second half Latin-american dictatorship cycle. Personal matter.

I'm sure your fine with Castro though....

Awfully considerate of you to post this directly into the Deluge.