One Pissed Off Liberal, GET OVER HERE!

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday February 12, 2007 · 12:43 PM PST

2007/02/12 · 12:43

No, I'm not calling out the diarist... instead I have a podcast you should get over here and listen to, Pyrrho and One Pissed Off Liberal in conversation.

One Pissed Off Liberal.... a great diarist at DailyKos and MLW

Podcast Link

We discuss Iraq and Impeachment, I hope you enjoy as much as I did.

pyrrho

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday February 08, 2007 · 9:49 PM PST

2007/02/08 · 21:49

I have been told I hate dailykos. I have been told if people that if they don't like something, they don't go there. But I do like reading dailykos. I also like being honest. Part of that is being reality based, and please hold me to that, and the other part of that is being truthful about how you feel.

All the times I have criticized markos' decisions, or some dailykos policy, never has kos made a complaint, he has come and said he was interested in my opinion once, and replied on issues, but never complained. I am sure kos has a pretty thick skin. Kos and I do not have a problem understanding one another. I have bought Kos and his wife a beer, I would again.

pyrrho

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 06, 2007 · 1:07 PM PST

2007/02/06 · 13:07

First of all I'd like to start clearly by insulting a large group of people, but only because they're liars. Practically everyone wants impeachment. Practically everyone here in fact believes there is reason to call for impeachement. If I'm wrong and you don't know that... I don't believe you. YOU WANT IMPEACHMENT. You think it's embarrassing or bad timing to ask for it now, it's premature... whatever, but you can't deny "wanting" it.

You are lousy relativists so you have no access to the trivially easy simile to opposition to the war. We were not to oppose the war in 2003, remember, because we were supposed to wait and see how it goes, wait for those WMD vans that Colin showed us. If we broke that rule, we were traitors. TRAITORS! But we called for it anyway.

We're the detractors wrong, those saying it was pointless, the nation was pro-war? Was it really possible to stop this war? Um... well, you havn't yet stopped it yet, so I suppose there was a grain of truth to their claim your calls we "unrealistic".

Do you regret making the call, YEARS ago? Do you feel embarrassed by that?

pyrrho

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday February 05, 2007 · 12:55 AM PST

2007/02/05 · 00:55

I have to confess I never did support the Iraq war. I knew Lieberman was a less than admirable Democrat in 2000 (I shit you not, no, it's true! some of us knew! No really!!!). I knew that Reagan's was not really (1) a great Republican Administration (**cough**Teddy Roosevelt**cough**), that it was fraught with some pretty bad corruptions, like selling arms to our enemies, our clearest enemies even, enemies they ran against in the election, essentially.

I knew the work of the Gang of 14, aka "The Nuclear Compromise of the Capitulating Seven" meant that the filibuster would not be used by Democrats. I said so. Can I get a free Frisbee? like a "Street Prophets" Frisbee or something? Being right on this stuff for decades has got to be going in some sort of account somewhere, right?

I knew it all.

Where is my gold star? What do I win? I'd like a tangerine or whatever you have in the way of copyright free images.

pyrrho

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday February 02, 2007 · 3:07 PM PST

2007/02/02 · 15:07

One thing that really bothers me about the "withdraw from Iraq" debate is this sense of smell I have... this sense of political wind, a sense of reality that "geopolitics" has certain unspoken rules that those in power obey, end of discussion.

One such rule: you never remove a military base from a forward installation unless forced by military means to do so.

I believe there is ZERO chance of the democrats arguing for such removal, that is, one that includes the US bases in Iraq. Indeed, Obama recently used the phrase, "combat troops"... as in, "removing combat troops"... leaving what sort of troops? those in hibernation? Those not in "combat" mode, but ready, of course... the bases.

Those bases are staying. They want "emotional withdrawal"... not physical or actual withdrawal.

My question, do you want them to stay? If our Democratic Party gets a "withdrawal" that still leaves tens of thousands deployed to Iraqi Bases, will you consider that the victory you were hoping for?

Poll

148 votes Show Results

US Bases In Iraq

148 votes Vote Now!

US Bases In Iraq

Should Stay

14 votes

Should Not Stay

49 votes

Should Not Stay, but will

83 votes

Should Stay, but won't

2 votes

Government As Infrastructure

pyrrho

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday January 31, 2007 · 7:19 PM PST

2007/01/31 · 19:19

The thing about relativism is that it explains why things have multiple "sides", as we like to call them, and it is indeed because of dimensionality... a two dimensional impression is one side of a three dimensional object, a different two dimensional impression composes the other. It would be the same for things which are four dimensional, like Einstein's relative frames, their three dimensional representation is just "one side" of their four dimensional whole, that is, everything they have been or will be in their whole lifetime.

So I understand why Delaware Dem's side of my fundamental political position is that I'm a crazed independent radical. It's not due to political positions, imo, (e.g. he's the one that is for single payer). It's just that I reject hierarchies, I am autonomous, I don't like being governed, and I don't think I'm alone in this. That's not "radical", that's the American Principle.

pyrrho

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday January 30, 2007 · 5:52 PM PST

2007/01/30 · 17:52

Ok, this is petty and quick. I have long wanted to not think about the "Democrat" vs. "Democratic" micro-slur, that's the sort of button they will love to push forever, always a coy look on their face, "who me?". I have little time for puzzles like that (boring!)

But you can't just forget things like this, let someone needle you forever, language is important, and one must face the currents of language, even when they seem minor... I don't have to explain that to you, this "Democrat Party" stuff drives you nuts too...

So, people have recommended, "Republic" party, etc., but nothing really sticks, well, mine may not either, and I can't decide for you anyway, but for myself I think I'll just start calling theirs the "UnDemocratic Party". That should settle it.

pyrrho

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday January 26, 2007 · 2:41 PM PST

2007/01/26 · 14:41

Reid covers various issues quickly in this 2 minute video posted just under an hour ago:

the libby trial
the Presidents healthcare "idea"
the status and role of our "decider", "it is really unfortunate he is unwilling listen to the American people", or his own generals... "who agrees with him?" asks Reid of Bush.

The link is here.

Reid didn't post it himself, the PoliticsTV people have.

He also speaks about the death of Maria Leavey, here.

Harry speculates that the evidence in the Libby case appears more and more valid as time goes on. That Bush's tax-care idea is muddled, and points out we are not a decider-ocracy.

pyrrho

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday January 25, 2007 · 2:54 PM PST

2007/01/25 · 14:54

I am really pissed. I didn't learn anything new about what a modern filibuster is composed of from the clarifications provided to thereisnospoon... I knew that stuff.

The fact is... Reid should not have caved to an administrative filibuster. It DOES NOT MATTER if that filibuster looked like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington... Reid could say, "well, we are going to bring this through to an up or down vote, just like we gave the Republicans on their judges." And, "Why should a judge making a six figure salary deserve and up or down vote, but America's poorest workers don't?"

pyrrho

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday January 23, 2007 · 5:51 PM PST

2007/01/23 · 17:51

Original Title: Where is the SOTU Open Thread, maybe here... or as DD said (paraphrased), "Post my Fucking SOTU Thread, Kos"... but we are a do it yourself blogosphere.

or alternately, this is it, I warn't going to use my diary today... but seriously, did I miss it? Is it coming up at the last minute?

Is there a nefarious plot not to have one?

Madame Speaker I demand an answer.

PS: is it too much to ask for Pelosi to do the little horns behind the head thing? Or maybe flick things at Cheney?

UPDATE: Embargoed text of the SOTU!

btw: The SOTU via C-SPAN online --> here

Jim Webb Can Justify the Vietnam War?!

pyrrho

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday January 22, 2007 · 7:52 PM PST

2007/01/22 · 19:52

When you say, "it's like Vietnam" to Jim Webb, it has a different meaning than it does to me. Webb, as you know, is a new Senator, a darling of centrists, our "progressive" (yes I have heard him called that, no I won't get a cite and if I never see another such reference, that's all I could ask for) savior.

In this article at USATODAY Webb is quoted as saying "I can still justify the war in Vietnam".

UPDATE: commenters provide a likely context, a Meet The Press interview that I remember now that it's been brought up... the quote is not exactly the same, but very similar, see comments for the quotes/links.

pyrrho

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday January 18, 2007 · 12:09 PM PST

2007/01/18 · 12:09

"Electability". Nothing more than a way for "centrist" dems to complain about liberals without needing any facts or policies to talk about. "But getting elected is really important"... no shit? Really? It's important you say? Right, it is.

Too bad "electable" candidates DON'T WIN! There is that little problem!

On the "Insufferable Scale" it's right up there with "liberals" that think things like Nationalized Healthcare are just a little bit too radical and unheard of to have in this country, "the people will never accept it even if it is a good idea... even if polling says they would, I'm certain for I have asked my corporate sponsor, they assured me, no, certainly not." They may have a point, just because a rich country like Bolivia can do it doesn't mean we can. Leave free medicine to stable nations like Chile I say, and spend your time electing electable electro-victorious election winners.

Newer
Older

RSS

One Pissed Off Liberal, GET OVER HERE!

I don't hate dailykos

Debbie Does Impeachment

I Want My Fecking Gold Star, Kos!!!

Do You Want Bases In Iraq?

Government As Infrastructure

The Democrat Party vs. the Un-Democratic Party

Reid Speaks

Filibuster, Spoon, Reid, BTD

SOTU Open Thread

Jim Webb Can Justify the Vietnam War?!

The Most Insufferable Thing In Politics