What He Said

What I say (3.00 / 4)

Why the fuck am I still a Democrat?

More importantly...why the fuck are you?  To any Democrat reading this: Do you realize that they are all just going to keep on doing this kind of shit?  Tell me again why the fuck you guys got behind this asshole?  Did you want a Governor who will lead New York State or did you want a pretty boy prepping himself for a Presidential run?

The fact is that this was bound to happen.  Andrew's just a little ahead of schedule.

THIS is the shit that happens when you all continue to blindly support one side of the same fucking coin.  Both parties, your hated Republicans and your beloved Democrats, want nothing more than to keep us all pissing our pants that 9/11 is gonna happen again and reminding us that it did happen.  They are both in bed with the corporate interests of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned our parents and grandparents about.  They are both just advertising gurus that know how to produce commercials to convince you of any motherfuckers ability to be the next John Kennedy or Dick Nixon no matter what the issues or facts are and whatever is most convenient to maintaining the status quo.  And all you who voted for Cuomo bought it, hook line and sinker.

"More and better Democrats."  Ha!  Good luck with that!  What you've got is more and better assholes that tricked you into believing they were actually going to represent your interests.

Hey, I didn't invent the rainy day.  I just know how to smash an umbrella across your face in case the cold water doesn't wake you the fuck up.  Sooner or later, if we want things to really change, you have to work outside the two  party system the way we did back in the 1770s, the 1890s, and the 1960s.

You don't win anything when you fight for the lesser of two evils!

Fuck Cuomo and fuck the Democratic Party.  And fuck anybody who's still ignorant enough to believe we're going to get living wages, fair health care, and end to the wars, and progressive regulation and taxation by blindly following them.  Brainless fucking lemmings.

You'll know who those are by the hide ratings this gets >:-)

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 15:53:14 PM UTC

Lemmings are tasty (4.00 / 2)

But you make good points.

---

by: Lead Dog @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 16:45:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

who is blindly following anyone (0.00 / 0)

you self-righteous ass?

Don't presume to understand what Cuomo voters were thinking, don't presume that Dem voters don't understand what's going on, and speaking as one voter who is still a registered Dem: bite me.

Also, too.

---

by: albany layman @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 18:55:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are, layman (0.00 / 0)

I wouldn't call a guy who ran his own independent write-in campaign somebody who "blindly follows," layman.  Come talk to me after you've sprouted the balls to do the same and gotten ten percent of the vote in only three weeks of campaigning.

And I'm not presuming to know what most Democratic voters are thinking.  It only took me a couple of years talking to them door-to-door everyday to realize that most of them have lost the desire and/or capacity to think to begin with.  Most of them don't know what's going on in the world, they just want to know what else is on TV or who's texting them.  And the ones that are capable of thinking tend to spend more time defending the party that gives it to them up the ass like it was their abusive but oh-so-cute boyfriend.  Like you.

Take, for example, your link to another Democratic following idiots blog that blames Ralph Nader for losing Florida in 2000.  That asshole, and you, apparently can't add.  All third-party candidates combined got more votes than Nader!  So how is it his fault?  Have you ever looked at a list of the man's legislative accomplishment?

Anybody who still says Ralph Nader lost the Florida election is a prime example of Blind Follower Democrat.  The fact are right fucking there, but they still repeat the Asses talking points the same way Rush dittoheads do!  What the fuck else am I supposed to call it when it's ignoring the facts in favor of what your favorite political party tells you to believe?

Look, I know you may not like being told the truth and realizing you were wrong, but don't hate the messenger.  This is the other thing I've found when canvassing: inform people that they've been fooled, and they inexplicably get pissed at whoever is informing them of this and not the actual con-man.  How the fuck does that make sense?  And how the fuck are you going to explain that without linking to fuzzy bunnies and poorly argued rants about a ten-year old electoral defeat?

Chew on that for a bit, then I'll bite you.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 19:36:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you've pretty much proved my point (0.00 / 0)

about what a self-righteous ass you are.

I count five clear examples of sentences in which you state just how right and superior you are, and how stupid and insane your adversaries are.

But set that aside.  Let's talk about another aspect of your rhetoric.  You repeatedly attributed words and thoughts to me that I did not express.  Which, for me, pretty much makes this all a waste of time.  Wouldn't you agree?  

Since you've already made up your mind about what my - and others' - motivations and thoughts are, then it's not actually necessary for me to be here.  You can argue against all the misguided sheeple that you perceive, and I can save myself the typing.  

---

by: albany layman @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 20:12:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Classic Cop Out (0.00 / 0)

Your response amounts to the following:

Oh noes!  A blogger who thinks he's right!  And usings swearwordz!! Whens did that start a happen?? What does I says to make myselfs look smarters?  I knows!  "This is a waste of my time, so bye byes, I win!"

I addressed your insinuations directly.  You're just saving yourself the typing because you failed to argue any of my points the same way.  Because those points cannot be successfully argued.

Here's the provable point: I threw the truth in your face, and rather than fucking face it, you copped out because I wasn't nicey-nice about it.  And trying to get that into the people's thick skulls is the only thing that's going to get people starting to vote for real progressives no matter what party.

Hardly a waste of time in my view.  If one other Blind Follower Democrat reads my statement and comes around to realizing how they've been fucked, my time has been well spent.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 20:45:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess I can't help myself (0.00 / 0)

My point, if I even have one, is this: a person can vote Dem and not be a blind follower.  You can't or won't see that.  That's what makes you a self-righteous ass.  

Also, you seem to think that your rhetoric is going to convince people of something.  The only thing that it's convinced me of is that you are - again - a self-righteous ass.  I'm guessing I'm not the only one reading you that's come to the same conclusion.

---

by: albany layman @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 21:55:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You could (0.00 / 0)

But only if you try to step out of the comfort zone of your beliefs, brother.  If you want to be quicker to judge other people than examine your own actions, then of course you won't be able to help yourself.  You won't be much help for the country, either.

This self-righteous ass was raised to be mindless conservative null.  It wasn't until I got into some heated arguments and started to challenge my own ideas that I became as progressive as I am.  Give a try sometime; I've seen your earlier stuff, I know you got it in you.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 23:16:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

remember when (0.00 / 0)

a politician could have simply said "I believe in our justice system," or if he needed to get hyperbolic with it, he could say "we have the best justice system IN THE WORLD!!1!"

But now it's all military commissions, and guarding against schmucks from backwards-ass countries as if they were comic book super-villians.  

What a frigging wuss.

---

by: albany layman @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 18:39:36 PM UTC

If he's such a wuss... (4.00 / 1)

...then why didn't you have the courage to vote for somebody better like I did?

This ain't fucking rocket science, people.  If you keep on voting for the same teams, your going to get replays of the same old game.  It's.  That.  Simple.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 19:48:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seriously, get a grip. (4.00 / 3)

I find it mind boggling that anyone is able to perpetuate this tired "they're all the same" bullshit after the 2000 election, Nader, Gore, and Bush. If anyone really thinks that we'd have had the same 8 years under Gore as we did under Bush, then they need to be kept away from heavy machinery.

Nobody has to remind me that my party has far more than it's share of pandering, mediocrity, and weak-kneed bullshit. But to bash people over voting for the ONLY acceptable choice who actually could win is so absurdly counter-productive as to be laughable. Until and unless we get instant runoff voting in this country, then calls to vote third party are going to be universally counter-productive, resulting in losing tight races and pushing Democratic candidates to the right to make up for lost votes.

I would pretty vehemently disagree with Cuomo's position on the KSM trial, for all the reasons laid out in what Phillip quoted. But using that as an excuse to say that all politicians are alike, and to insist on some level of ideological purity that you will never find in anyone who can actually get elected, it's a noble clarion call to higher ideals. It's a cop-out on the real world and the way that politics actually works.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 07:13:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Recommended (0.00 / 0)

Now that's the argument I was waiting for.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but at least you engaged the ideas I put forth instead of just calling me self-righteous.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 00:20:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cut The Hyperbole, Schmucks (0.00 / 0)

There are plenty of perfectly legal grounds for trying KSM  outside of NY.  Holding a trial in NYC would be incredibly expensive and would effectively shut down lower Manhattan for months.  The Constitution will not crumble if the trial is held elsewhere.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 21:37:53 PM UTC

Derp de derp derpa (0.00 / 0)

What a dumb argument.  If you're an attorney, kindly advise us all as to the "perfectly legal grounds" for getting this shit done already.

As for the "expensive" part, why don't you suggest an appropriate price tag for bringing the murderers of over 3,000 people to justice?  How much, fuckstick?

Where would you hold the trial to make it "cheaper" anyway? This ain't WalMart, it's the American justice system.

Maybe you would prefer to keep paying the costs required to keep the guy in custody indefinitely?  What's the cap you'd place on that, genius?

And please explain just how this trial would "shut down" Manhattan.  It's baffling to me that the place that holds the Times Square New Years Eve celebration and so many other massive public gatherings is going to be "shut down" because of the security required to try one international criminal, and you idiots suggesting that it would be shut down have always failed to present any logistics in support of your claims when pressed.  

Sorry if it's "self-righteous" to ask that people back up their claims, but that's all I'm asking.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 23:43:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who cares? (0.00 / 0)

He's going to be found the exact same amount of guilty in NYC as in Butte, MT. This entire bit of drama was manufactured a year ago by hacks for political gain. If no one had ever brought it up publicly and the trial had been scheduled in New Jersey, no one would have cares.

Media sensationalism. Streisand effect. etc.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 16:47:01 PM UTC

*cared (0.00 / 0)

typo...

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat Nov 13, 2010 at 16:47:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Use Ft. Hamilton Army Base in Brooklyn (0.00 / 0)

Convene a civilian court each day on the base.
(Lease the building if necessary).
House the prisoners on the base with Federal security and troops.
Convey the jury and court personnel via road, water, rail and/or air.

---

by: ChrisK @ Sun Nov 14, 2010 at 22:15:54 PM UTC

Yeah. (4.00 / 2)

Not to go all postal, but we can't expect Al Qaeda to fear us the way they need to if we shit ourselves over holding a trial.

---

by: Michael Bouldin @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 13:20:07 PM UTC