Re: Sore loser right wing and its "Liberal" media shills still spewing bull***

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:48:34 -0800 (PST), freeisbest
<demeter547opine@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 30, 10:59 pm, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:00:10 -0800 (PST), freeisbest
<demeter547op...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 30, 5:25 pm, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 09:25:04 -0800 (PST), freeisbest

<demeter547op...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 30, 12:14 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uc95j4te1bt92t8n7qgt4k779ub3nagqm9@xxxxxxxxxx

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 08:51:47 -0500, Harry Hope <riv...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_...
<snip>
Hey, rightards and your media shills, GET OVER IT!!!

  Who cares, let 'em stew.

I thought you have told us in the past that you were someone who
was in the middle of the road, when it came to politics?

   Sure looks like Geoff's in the middle of the road to me.  He
hasn't gone out of his way to verbally run over whiny rightards, just
leaves them at the extreme-right curb where voters kicked them.

   I just got tired of it.  There's too many of them in this
newsgroup, but as far as I can tell from where I live, they
don't exist in real life.  I suppose there are still quite a few
between the rocks in the states that still vote Republican,
but I don't live there thank Zeus.  And there's El Castor
up in Marin County but I wonder what most people think
of him up there if he speaks there as he speaks in this
newsgroup.  I've killfiled most all of them, which is why
you don't see me responding to them much anymore.
Others are keeping up the good work.

  In my own case, I think that continuing the good work is now a
matter of slowly losing the desperate momentum I gained during that
nerve-wracking year+ when we all thought that rightards might retain
their strnaglehold on the nation.  I'm slowly regaining my good sense,
tho it will take time before I can ignore the flood of lies and hate
that flow so naturally from our 'friends' on the extreme right..

   That's true.  The election of Obama has taken a lot of the
pressure off, but the nation is in ruins now, so the task
before Obama is frighteningly daunting.

Imho that why it's unwise to elect a president older than, say,
55 or 60. The job ahead is horrific. Unparalleled. Reasonably
intelligent people - ahem - see very clearly that the task looks
(nearly) hopeless. That's why we need younger, feistier people who
will stride briskly toward the Augean Stables*, filled with hope and
confidence.

[ ..."Hercules succeeded by rerouting the rivers Alpheus and
Peneus to wash out the filth."]

 If he can't fix things,
nobody can; but maybe nobody can at this point.  We had
a nine trillion dollar debt but Bush is piling more trillions onto
it in the time he has left, and what do we see for it so far?
just the all-too-familiar "Oh it would have been even worse
if we hadn't done what we did."  Paulson says that's a
tough sell.  Yes it is, because maybe it isn't true.

How tactful that "maybe" is... ;^)

  I've said occasionally that I most like Scandinavian-type
socialism.  That's middle-of-the-road in Scandinavia, but
it's fairly "left" in the USA in general, and indistinguishable
from communism to the startlingly large contingent of
totally flipped-out right-wingers in soc.retirement.  The size
of that contingent may just be due to having so many old
people here, many of whom still long for the good old days
before 1954, or even before 1861, or even before 1215.
(Infernal liberals!)

    In my darker moods I seriously think rightards actually are what
they appear to be: a self-selected group who embrace the far right
because it promises relief from the demands of law and religion, both
of which order them not to act on their strongest beliefs, all few of
which appears to run along the lines of 'might makes right in every
situation', 'attack first, ask questions later', 'what you seize is
what you get', and 'make every statement a lie, and you'll never be
tripped up by the truth.'

    Religion IMV has never been a force for good, at least
not since the time of the Vikings.  It was said to have
civilized the vikings but I think it's more likely the Vikings
just got tired of killing each other, which they had been
doing with just as much zest as when they murdered Irish
Monks.  In France, Viking brothers, literally, had been
killing each other depending on who paid each and
allowed them some of the spoils.

Maybe that's the 'advancement' which the Viking/European human
strain represents - complete abandonment of a basic behavior of
primates, in which individuals aid, feed, and defend the members of
their own troop//family. Seems plausible at least. Everyone has
noticed that at their stupidest (between ages 13 and 18), a largish
percentage of human females consider such males desirable mates. Then
there was my group of girls - starting at about 13, we mentally
labeled such men & boys this way: "absolutely do not breed with under
any circumstances".... and so we didn't...
Too bad we can't manage the human herd so there wouldn't be so
many bulls...

   As to law, the right wing seems to regard it as a way to
keep other people from getting at their own stuff while
giving them free rein to grab other people's stuff.  Any
goal of law that threatens what they've already grabbed
or tells them to keep their hands off any more of other
people's stuff sets them a-wailing immediately.  That's
just the billionaire right-wing of course, the rest are just
useful idiots.

Not much extra justification for your viewpoint is needed, when
hundreds of news organizations offer new supporting data every single
day.
Thinking of your billionaire/dupe split, tho, I've talked to
enough of the dupe group to know that they live in a strange half-
world in which they themselves don't actually have money, but where
they will give their lives to defend the right of *other people* to be
billionaires. I still don't have any idea why anyone would be that
abject - contact with my brain cells makes the idea of selfless
servility vanish.


They never read Oscar Wilde's "The soul of man under
socialism". Maybe they read Ayn Rand instead. Maybe they
just watched Gilligan's Island and automobile commercials.



http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html
Excerpt:

We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them
are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They
are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are
quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously
inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually
accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the
sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they
be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table? They
should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for
being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such
surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute.
Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's
original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been
made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor
are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is
both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is
starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practise
thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show
that he can live like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live
like that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is
considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is
safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. No; a
poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented, and rebellious is
probably a real personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a
healthy protest. As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of
course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private
terms with the enemy and sold their birthright for very bad pottage.
They must also be extraordinarily stupid. I can quite understand a man
accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of its
accumulation, as long as he himself is able under these conditions to
realise some form of beautiful and intellectual life. But it is almost
incredible to me how a man whose life is marred and made hideous by
such laws can possibly acquiesce in their continuance.


-----
"A map of the world that does not include Utopia
is not even worth glancing at." -- Oscar Wilde
.

Loading