one_outer commented on the diary post Democracy in an age of “unhappy capitalism”: signal and noise by David Seaton.
It seems obvious to me that keeping the serious and serene political conversation audible above the insane noise produced and paid for by the extreme right, for the express purpose of paralyzing the political system, should be the primary objective of every sensible, politically aware person , whatever their location on the political spectrum from moderate conservative to [...]
Eating raw foods is awesome. However, you lost me here:
With assistance, he lifts weights three times a week, and spends 10-12 hours a day on his computer, sharing information about all manner of “alternative” or holistic medical therapies and diets. You can read more about him here: http://www.healingwithdrcraig.com
Anyone who believes in “alternative” medicine and [...]
In an apparent effort to restrict information to their populace, the Chinese government wrote of a number of US mass shootings but failed to mention they were either stopped by a citizen legally carrying a firearm or otherwise only occurred in the controversial gun-free zones that critics say make prime targets for madmen.
I’ve been considering this passage and I’m thinking it is a clever lie. I too said “when did an armed Fatriot (not a typo) stop a shooting?” After careful consideration, I’m thinking that this part “were either stopped…” is trick. They EITHER were in gun-free zones or were stopped by a Fatriot – but that doesn’t mean that one of these unnamed examples MUST be a Fatriot intervention. So the sleight of hand is, either by a Fatriot (zero cases) or gun-free zone (many many cases).
And he probably thinks he’s clever, or thinks that he actually knows a real example. So he’s either a stupid liar or just stupid.
Oh,that’s fine, I didn’t get that from the original. That’s a pretty good version of the most-effective-evil argument.
The commenter means that Obama and the republicans want the same thing.
one_outer commented on the diary post That Incredibly Awkward Moment when People Discover that You are Socialist by luciusjunius.
I really enjoyed this. Those being critical just don’t get it. They can’t see it the same way socialists do. And my favorite part is that, right on cue, these folks stick their vacillating heads up:
the “practical” liberal who thinks he is so “progressive” (I hate that word now) but becomes William F. Buckley [...]
Originally I was open to the idea of just letting those silly Texas dead enders walk if they could get a serious movement to secede together. Now, I’m not so sure. Without the rest of us enforcing environmental standards on them the Gulf of Mexico would be a much bigger ecological catastrophe in less than [...]
As a general rule I’m automatically writing off anything that refers to third parties as “spoilers” (as if Democrats and Republicans have some sort of “natural” right to be the two legitimate choices). I understand the thrust of Margaret’s argument but, that being said, it’s logical conclusion is really what should drive us away from [...]
This diary is getting too much undeserved praise. A few notes: The author never defines “totalitarianism”. This is a brutally subjective term unless you’re familiar with the relevant academic work on the phenomenon. As such, it must be defined at the outset in a piece designed for the general public. Anything less is not serious. [...]
Agreed, most will vote for the Sane Republican Party. But the crazy Republicans wouldn’t be a rump party. They’d be totally legitimate, and still setting the agenda even with Democrats in charge.
That’s a much bigger problem than who wins this particular election.
one_outer commented on the diary post I would prefer to vote for a socialist or Marxist for president— BUT… by Alan Maki.
I’m with you except for that whole working with liberals thing.
They’re capitalists, you know.
I’ll take Romney. A Palin loss would only embolden the fascists IMO.
And this is interesting
And more generally: Would you rather have a GOP that goes so far off the conservative deep end that it implodes and becomes a powerless fringe party, or a GOP that pulls itself back from the brink and starts moving back towards the center?
except I think you’re making a big error here. I don’t think there is “too far” for the Republicans in the current political climate. If the Democrats weren’t competing with each other to see how far right they can move then you might be able to make an argument for the Republicans eventually imploding. However, and it’s a big however, the Democrats keep moving right when the Republicans move right, therefore validating and legitimizing the Republican position. They, the Democrats, are working their asses off to normalize and mainstream everything coming from the “other side”. So, if something doesn’t give among the Democrats, eventually we’re going to run through the whole hard fascist thrill ride. Only when that’s over and we have a chance to pick up the pieces would there be a chance to do anything the right way.
That is, unless something gives with the Democrats. And who thinks that will happen?
one_outer commented on the blog post Republican Ron Hill: ‘Taliban Rick’ Santorum Sinks to New Low in Questioning Obama’s Faith
From the first paragraph:
and…oxymoron, no need to read any farther.
This is one of the things I don’t like about Pam – that she would even think that this is worth putting on FDL. It’s just sad.
They are the enemy. Get off the fence and fight. There is no space for “civility”. These people are literally the enemies of everything we believe in. Stop trying to find common ground, and start fighting. Crap like this just makes the conservatives right about us when they accuse us of weakness. We are weak – they at least know the difference between allies and enemies.
one_outer commented on the diary post Has Obama Decided To Start A War With Iran To Assure That He Wins The Election? by Masoninblue.
I’d be interested in seeing you explore the other side of the coin a little bit, vis a vis whether the US is even capable, politically and economically, of engaging in a war of Iran. Our international reputation is in tatters; international reaction would be extremely negative; if it didn’t go well right away (and I [...]
A couple things: -The piece itself is actually pretty balanced, and I like it in general even if the conclusion about violence being a problem in and of itself is wrong. We started with a good exploration in defining violence, and even opening the door a bit to what would be a justifiable use of violence [...]
Yep, this piece is pretty shallow. But this definitely isn’t true: “Given that the authoritarian, in-election-mode Obama will, without doubt, bankrupt this country in his attempt to distract us with a Syrian war and then a war with Iran, I’d say your hope for Santorum to win the GOP nomination so Obama can look better [...]
Cute, except for this: “Mr. Santorum’s professed but “i”Phoney Christian faith and that of his supporters have apparently made the leap from a bunch of self-satisfied ants in winter to a congregation of self-righteous magistrates who have adjudicated against the rights of a majority of Americans who happen to fall outside the suffocating confines of [...]
one_outer commented on the blog post Actress Cynthia Nixon ‘muddies the waters’: being gay is a choice (for her)
I think you’re misdiagnosing the problem.
The problem with her statement is that it comes at a time when much of American finally has heard enough science points to being gay (or straight, for that matter) is certainly not a choice. While a black-and-white notion about sexual orientation is helpful to the lesbian and gay movement in the struggle for equality, this thinking at the same time renders bisexuality invisible.
The treatment of bisexuality in this piece is laudable. As someone that identified that way for a while, and stopped because I got out of labels like that altogether, I feel a lot of truth in your account of the invisible truth of bisexuality. While that is all good, it is missing the point.
The real problem that I’m seeing here is that the gay movement, represented here by Aravosis, seems to want the national conversation around equality to be less than honest for political reasons, demonstrated in this case by caving automatically to the right wing frame “choice=bad”. See what John does here:
But she needs to learn how to choose her words better, because she just fell into a right-wing trap, willingly. When the religious right says it’s a choice, they mean you quite literally choose your sexual orientation, you can change it at will, and that’s bull.
He just gives the game away right up front. He automatically grants legitimacy to the view of “choice=bad” when he doesn’t challenge it. The correct answer to a right winger playing the choice card is to reframe the debate completely.
In reality, sexual orientation exists on a continuum. It needs to be discussed that way, regardless of what the short term political consequences might be. This is the problem: if the truth needs to obfuscated in some way to ensure victory, you’re doing it wrong.
Instead of conceding the frame to the right and creating this black and white faux frame for the general public, the correct answer to any of that ‘it’s a choice’ bullshit is not John’s, or to poo poo what’s her face, but this:
So what? Do you not believe in individual liberty? Even if it is a choice, which it really isn’t, there is still nothing wrong with a free American or anyone else making such a choice.
And leave it at that. Done. Don’t give them an inch, and concede not even one little ounce of their belief system.
- Load More