Obama hatred: it’s not just for conservatives/classical-liberals anymore!
(thanks to JHo)
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
“A rat must chew – or it’s teeth grow through it’s brain!”
— Hemlock Stomes, “The Giant Rat of Sumatra”
Kind of reminds me of that MASH episode when the shithouse exploded with Col. Blake in it.
“Boom.”
The liberals must turn on Obama lest they be forced to confront the abject failure of the policies they have long advocated and Obama duly implemented. Those petrified redistributionist policies form the bedrock of not just their political outlook, but also the core of their self-image, and in a great number of cases, even the incomes they receive.
Now comes the vicious end-game: The greater Obama’s failures, the more anger and vitriol his former supporters must heap on him, their erstwhile champion, or they will be forced to confront the fatal flaws at their own existential centers.
I don’t think that empty-headed fellow travelers care much for self-reflection; Obama is going to enjoy starring in a replay of that perennial Socialist classic, “The Night of the Long Knives”.
Could not happen to a more deserving useful idiot.
“Then there’s all that work we did for the campaign, all the dirty work they asked us to do – and we did it, gladly, and quietly – none of that counted either, apparently.” — John Aravosis, AmericaBlog
– I don’t recall the identity politics agitpropsters being very “quiet”.
When things get ugly, someone’s gotta go up against the wall.
This is nothing other than a predictable attempt by Barcky to position himself as a reasonable moderate centrist.
If you don’t know history, you’re condemned to repeat it.
Lest anyone on the left forgets, Maximillan Robespierre, “the Incorruptable”, and a major leader of the French Revolution himself ended up on the guillotine.
Leftist “revolutions” always have a nasty habit of turning inward and eating their own.
The more things change……
Is it only a habit, or is it a necessity built right into their principles? Looks more the latter to me.
No, sdferr, it isn’t a “necessity built right into their principles.” It’s an inevitable concomitant of the fact that their principles are wrong, i.e., don’t match what is laughingly referred to as “the real world”.
Regards,
Ric
“…And why shouldn’t activist liberals be as angst ridden as anyone else in the country anyway? I realize we aren’t considered Real Americans by the Villagers, but the truth is that our lives are just as f*cked up as the {tea baggers}’….– Digby, Hullabaloo
– Built in. Even as they are forced to watch the wondrous destructive force of Socialism, they can’t imagine they and their bankrupt ideology is the root cause.
– When the end comes, they scurry like a kitchen floor covered with roaches when the light gets flipped on, looking for something, anything but themselves, to blame.
– Three or four generations from now they’ll do it all again.
Seems like a distinction without a difference to me Ric. The real world being a necessity and the principles athwart the real, the outcome would be a certainty.
Digby is mistaken. They’re real Americans, all right. Nobody could be that f*ed up without being authentic.
Regards,
Ric
Their principles — one winces to abuse the word here — are indeed wrong…and the outcome was always a certainty.
We don’t grasp but a fraction of just how wrong and deepseated and longstanding they are. We can look at the symptoms of this terminal affliction and estimate the time to certain failure.
That’s a true point, sdferr. It ain’t what you don’t know that hurts you; it’s the stuff you’re absolutely sure of that’s wrong.
Still, though, the problems aren’t “built in” in the sense that they’re acknowledged by the ideology and worked toward. The system is absolutely rational, and as long as you don’t step outside its postulates it’s perfectly possible to demonstrate that it’s logically correct.
The problem is that Universe isn’t rational. Without ever quite realizing it (in fact, denying it in many cases) the leftoids are assuming a rational, mechanistic, Newtonian Universe, in which perfect knowledge of the state vector is possible and predicts all future state vectors. Neither is the case, but that isn’t allowed for — and when the predictions don’t come true (unexpectedly!) the leftoid examines his reasoning, finds it perfect, and can only blame inimical outside forces.
Regards,
Ric
I disagree, Ric. The left can be and routinely is dismantled by both fact and theory — by outcome and prediction.
I tells ya, Ric, if it weren’t for them damn wreckers…
I’d take a slightly more reductionistic route here, I guess: Power! Get some! (Alinsky) > To what end power (the bystander)? > No nono, Power is the end! (Alinsky) > Oh. (the bystander) > Acolytes eat one another (the end).
Reality is counter-revolutionary!
I missed this nobody tells me anything
“The system is absolutely rational, and as long as you don’t step outside its postulates it’s perfectly possible to demonstrate that it’s logically correct.”
– In other words, a pretty theory, workable only in a theoretically perfect world, built on the foundation of tacitly ignoring real world trVths such as human nature, supply and demand economics, and cultural differences, any one of which is a fatal flaw, but taken together marks Socialism as probably the most failure prone of any ideology yet devised by man.
– But you know, it’s a relatively young idea, and it’s never been practiced properly, so NEXT time they’ll get it right, in spite of reality.
Never fear comrades! With enough blood and fire, the eschaton shall be immanetized!
You missed the caveat, JHo: …as long as you don’t step outside [the] postulates…
One of those postulates is the tail-chasing assumption that it’s NP-complete as it stands, like the Koran.
Regards,
Ric
I tried to a couple of days ago hf.
Socialism a young idea? It’s one of the oldest ideas in the book. So old in fact that it’s in The Book. Go read Acts sometime. If saints can’t make socialism work, what chance do mere mortals have?
oh. thank you for trying
– I was referring to “a young idea” amongst the modern elitists Ernst.
– The “free lunch” troupe has been with us since Eve filched apples from that tree.
nobody tells me anything
And Mr Beck had it up on the blackboard.
Just, Claudia’s story went up on the 4th is all. Well, coupled with the fact that I trust her not to lie to me.
Yes, sdferr, but what you aren’t allowing for can’t be emphasized strongly enough: Alinsky is outside the System. Power is NOT, repeat NOT, a goal of the Left in its ideal rationalistic form; to the extent it’s addressed, it’s as a means to an end (and, of course, the ends justify the means). That’s how the leftoid trolls here can ignore or deny accusations along that line. It isn’t part of the rigid syllogism, therefore doesn’t exist. They don’t want power, they just want to clothe the poor, feed the sick, and enrich the naked.
Alinsky and Alinskyites are opportunists who have noticed the same thing(s) I have, particularly Rule #3: Provide a power position, and power-seekers will seek it. The adoption of Alinskyite tactics is why the present bunch is leftoids, not leftists.
Regards,
Ric
I mistook Alinsky for sitting in the title to the post, I guess, and myself for speaking about him and his ways in 8.
The postulates are irrational, meaning that anyone labeling their progg reasoning rational must adopt a decidedly irrational stance: That of denying information not only useful to anyone presuming to either inform or act upon these systems — such as proggs do, sans shame or fear — but required to earn the label of rational.
Ergo, fail from the first move, which is my assertion.
You don’t need to know all variables when the very beauty of the self-regulating originalist system is that it doesn’t require them to be managed or comprehended. From this it doesn’t allow one entity to even try. As further proof of their arrogance — and of the inherent irrationality baked into the progg cake — the progg denies this history and in so doing, violates it as a matter of course as well.
The postulate that denial is an essential ingredient isn’t a postulate. Watching these proggeeks spin about wildly kinda verifies that.
– As a practical matter, we’re barely 20 months into “the great transformation”, and I dare say there’s a few people not too happy with the results, including the grand architects themselves, whether they understand the real reason’s for it’s failure or not.
– The bigger question now is, can we even revover from it enough to get back anywhere close to where we once were.
All postulates are irrational, JHo — that’s why they’re “postulates”. It isn’t possible to prove that all right angles are congruent, for instance; it’s possible to assume they aren’t, and show that it leads to foolishness, but that doesn’t prove it in a rational sense.
More importantly: It’s impossible to prove that parallel lines never meet, and it took a long time and much thought to realize that the idea that parallel lines exist was saying something, not about geometry, but about the space geometry was done in.
Regards,
Ric
– Ric – Teaching dirty hippies the facts of life is above everyone’s pay grade.
BBH: Some learn by instruction, some by example, but some have to pee on the electric fence their ownselves.
All we can really do is make sure the battery’s fresh.
Regards,
Ric
Of course, Ric, yet the “postulate” that, for example, saddling the country with massive new CAFE emissions standards was the surest way to revive both a cratering economy and a domestic auto industry — as my jackass senator once wrote me — can hardly be called a postulate.
Such an assertion is more of a bald-faced lie aimed at installing central power and making the rubes live by it. The reasoning is bullshit and the only debate is whether it was intentional or not. And that debate is for mere aftereffect.
So is that a postulate or a lie?
The matter of motive enters into human affairs, all the more when history and simple common sense rule with profound weight and verifiability. The unprovability of parallel lines never had it this onerous and terminal, did it?
And: how is asserting two parallel lines don’t meet irrational?
– True, but that only works as long as fresh batteries are being produced.
– Lets hope we’re able to get back to an energizer rabbit society soon.
I heard one math-y guy say that parallel lines meet at infinity. He had some kind of proof, but I have an engineer’s mind, so it didn’t sit well with me.
I find the whole “countable infinity” thingy to be similar.
BTW, one of the severe problems the auto industry had to face were new fuel economy regulations. The fact of the regulations helped further their near destruction and the government takeover of two of them. No politician mentioned that fact, however, because they are weasels.
JHo: it’s “irrational” because you can’t prove it by stepwise reasoning from other, unrelated or more basic facts. That’s what “rational” means. Geometers tried for literally centuries, and failed. One of Asimov’s essays is a witty treatment of the process.
Pollution rules and the gain therefrom aren’t leftist postulates, they’re leftist syllogisms proceeding from the postulates. Start with the Left’s treatment of “the commons” and you can get there by perfectly logical reasoning. And, as I say, the problem isn’t with rationality; it’s the application of rationality to Universe, which is fractal and quantum rather than rational.
Regards,
Ric
I find the whole “countable infinity” thingy to be similar.
It’s more of a definition thing. If you can define a 1-1 mapping between an infinite set and a subset of itself (e.g., integers to square numbers) then the infinite set is “countable”. Otherwise, it’s not.
It’s that Cantor set theory hoo-hah.
Darth, I sort of understand the reasoning, I just don’t get the point. It’s like saying one infinity is less than another one or something.
Once I saw baby Rudin, math and I parted company, and before that we were such good friends and understood each other.
Jonah Goldberg today, from that email version of the Goldberg File that the NR “suits” make him put out every Thursday:
Struck me as apropos. Have a nice weekend all.
– cranky – there are “local” infinities, and meta-infinities, all slave to a thing called “framework”. Think of a 2-D man trying to reason anything about a 3-D world.
– At present physics, as a science, has decided there are indeed quanta limits as Ric mentioned. Anything beyond that is the realm of God if he exists.
– Math is an abstract perfect construct that exists solely in our imaginations. We can’t even prove whether it actually exists as a real “thing”, beyond the fact that it itself predicts useful things, up to a point, and it allows us to communicate beyond tangible realities.
– In the mean time, trying to run a country based on math-like postulates is the same as trying to teach a pig to tap dance.
cranky, it helps if you know that Cantor was clinically insane. This explains much of the impetus for higher mathematics.
It’s had to get tap shoes in pig sizes, I’ll bet.
– Yes, and unfortunately for teh great transformation, there are no piggy tap shoes in the fox hole of society.
For those who enjoy it, mathematics is the ultimate version of Solitaire.
The fact that it occasionally has practical use is irrelevant to mathematicians, and an odd (and useful) coincidence for the rest of us.
Regards,
Ric
Once I saw baby Rudin, math and I parted company, and before that we were such good friends and understood each other.
Mom wanted me to go into Biology, and become some hot-shot DNA researcher or something. I took one look at the field and said, “Living things are way too random. I’ll go into something solid and reasonable, like Physics.”
That worked great, ’til Heisenberg showed up…
Obama isn’t really half the leftist his right-wing opponents claim he is and bloggers like Greenwald and Duncan Black have been pointing this out for at least a year now.
Congratulations on finally noticing this.
#35 Ric Locke:
Sir – that was the funniest and wisest thing I have read today.
Thank you.
However much a leftist Obama may or may not be, some of us have noticed for a long time that he’s far too much a moron to be of great help to anyone, leftist or no.
Obama isn’t speeding towards the cliff fast enough for Greenwald et. al., and AJB thinks this is a good thing?
I’m not buying it, Rick. Among other things, you need to account for motive.
No, AJB, Obama isn’t a Leftist, he’s an Alinskyite leftoid with delusions of Messiahhood. Marx would call him a “wrecker”, just as he’d call you a “dirty Fabian.”
That doesn’t alter the fact that all his education, all his training, everything he knows or thinks he knows comes from Leftist dogma, and that all his proposals and policies either proceed from those assumptions or use them as cover — mostly the latter. Those of us who noticed that from Day 1 are guffawing out loud as you and the rest of the tools discover it, painfully in many cases. Your pain is my entertainment.
Regards,
Ric
“Congratulations on finally noticing this.”
– Au contrere mon stupid’ one. Knowing he was a S. Chicago bagman was all anyone needed to know.
– The fact that he bamboozled all you leftoids is to laugh if it wasn’t so costly to the country.
The Obama version of original ideas is to pick and choose from the idea, mostly bad, from former Democratic Presidents and the occasional Republican one that resonated with them. Chinese menu policy.
Gibbs was trying out a new combination. The “modified limited triangulation”. AJB finds it a tasty snack item.
I don’t pretend to be on the same intellectual plane of y’all here, but can this redneck postulate that the “reality based community” described here operates within a fictional reality?
At least that theory makes it easy to understand them.
Am I in error here?
No, irongrampa, that’s exactly right. They not only live in a fictional reality, they live in a radically oversimplified one, in which issues are simple and everything can be resolved by stepwise “rational” reasoning. The combination is sometimes called “sophomoric”.
Universe don’t roll that way.
Regards,
Ric
“There are poor people who don’t have food? Well, let’s just nationalize all the farms and distribute the food fairly to all. Problem solved!”
The stoned dorm-room rap session method of governance.
Guess my next question is why is anyone arguing with them? Not like you’re going to change any minds there.
Up to me, I’d say screw the adults, give me 2 generations of kids and you could force a paradigm change.
It occurs that the reason they haven’t won in a final way is too many people still live in the real world and influence their offspring accordingly.
I still have faith in my country, and firmly believe that the true movers and shakers will come from the military–not the mall rats and their ilk. Why? Because the military teaches the same values, ethic and morals that once were common. Add continual reinforcement, and you have a great base to draw from. Should that military become infected too badly with the current social construct promulgated, then we ARE done as an unequaled experiment.
Now y’all can tell me I’m naive or full of crap, but I’m convinced that’s a logical premise.
Off the soapbox now.
AJB – Obama was from the Chicago political machine and you expected he would be the only virgin in the whorehouse?
– irongrampa – your intuition is correct.
– Captain Ramius : “When he reached the New World, Cortez burned his ships. As a result his men were well motivated.”
– The average Lefturd would burn the ships with the provisions and crew still aboard.
– They only ask can they do something, they never ask should they do it.
– Reality is just to messy for the Leftoid mind.
They don’t handle cognitive dissonance well, apparently…
The problem, irongrampa, is that if you can’t learn them, and they won’t leave you alone, the screwing will have to come in calibers.
that why local school boards need to be taken over nationwide by con/classlibs
– Yes, in some ways we’re a strange country. We wouldn’t think of allowing the military to oiperate in anything but a god fearing, principled, morally based way, after all they have guns.
– Yet we allow a small, loud mouthed obnoxious quarrelsome cult group game our political system.
– The difference, one of many, is we also have guns, and they’re scared shitless of even touching the muzzles.
– That thought is always comforting when I’m hand loading shells.