Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Congraturation!

The following Senators have demonstrated that they don't completely fucking suck:

Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Evan Bayh (D-Ind.)
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)
John F. Kerry (D-Mass.)
Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
Mark Dayton (D-Minn.)
Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.)
Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.)

Where the fuck are Russ fucking Feingold and Barack fucking Obama? Jezus fuck. Goddamn spineless democrats. They should fucking all vote against every single bush nomination no matter what, just on principle. Oh, we'll be painted as obstructionist. Gosh, that would be SO MUCH WORSE than what we have now, wouldn't it? 'Cause you're just sitting so fucking pretty, aren't you? Incidentally, how the hell does fucking Indiana get a Democratic senator and we don't? NOT FAIR.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous pontificated to the effect that...

Obama's not really at all opposed to the doctrine of starting wars for no reason in order to "spread democracy." He just puts a more cosmopolitan face on it; according to that form of warmongering, if you can just get France and Germany to say it's okay, then it's okay and there's no reason at all to not go do it. As a result of that mentality, large parts of Serbia are now poisoned with depleted uranium, and Serbs are being ethnically cleansed out of Kosovo.

That's the trouble nowadays. I personally know many Democrats who got sold on this "humanitarian war" bullshit, and even many outspoken, vehemently anti-Bush folks never even think to question the mindset of endless military interventionism in other countries' business.

- SK

12:30 PM  
Blogger GeoX, who is here to stay, like it or not. pontificated to the effect that...

I don't really know a lot about Obama, other than that he was supposed to be some sort of superstar. I guess I just sort of assumed that he would therefore embody what I had naƮvely assumed to still at some level be the party's core ideals. Silly me.

1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous pontificated to the effect that...

Well, he is socially liberal and fairly good on domestic policy (I think); it's just that his foreign policy is one of bullying and warmongering. Thing is, though, it's entirely possible that he does reflect the views of many, perhaps most, mainstream liberals, which is why the liberal websites have penned so many panegyrics to him. Recall how bartcop vocally supports all of Clinton's military adventures, which were far less disastrous to Americans than Bush's, but which nonetheless left the Balkans fucked up beyond all recognition.

I know you don't like the Manics' line, "White liberal hates slavery / needs Thai labour to clean his home / Gold erodes, erodes the soul," but I always thought it was remarkably perceptive of this exact problem. It doesn't attack liberalism, but it does allegorically illustrate the hypocrisy occurring when certain people claiming to be liberals bemoan the lack of "human rights" in some foreign country or other, and post statements on their blogs expressing sympathy with the poor oppressed people in those countries, and then turn right around and call for sanctions or bombing, in the delusion that American military power will fix everything and usher in these "human rights." Sure, unlike Bush, they'd ask the UN first, but the UN saying it's okay to kill people in the name of some abstract rhetoric doesn't make it so.

This mentality of interventionism leads many Democrats, otherwise sensible folks who loathe Kenny Boy, condemn the torture at Abu Ghraib, and oppose the "Patriot Act," to support such despicable characters as the imprisoned Russian oil magnate Khodorkovsky, or the neocon-funded fraud Viktor Yuschenko, or other so-called "democratic reformers" in Eastern Europe who sold their countries out to Western companies, thus playing right into the hands of neoconservative expansionism.

10:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home