Beckwin

[Ryko]

Are you just trying to debunk a point because it uses an argument that you consider to be overused?

[Darkslitter]

BECKLOSER BABY SO WHY DON'T YOU KILL ME

http://www.google.com/url?source=img...2Ufh9qGczR3fog

[Dimmauk]

http://www.google.com/url?source=img...2Ufh9qGczR3fog

This.

[Kuya]

Are you just trying to debunk a point because it uses an argument that you consider to be overused?

Nope.

[Tsutsumiko]

Nope.

Well...if he denies it clearly that isn't what he's trying to do.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Well...if he denies it clearly that isn't what he's trying to do.

lol

[Kuya]

Tsu, big boys talking here. Out.

[Tsutsumiko]

Tsu, big boys talking here. Out.

Out.

But only cause I have to shower and Chic-Fil-A sounds more tempting than reading this thread.

[Kuya]

Oh, Beckwin, and remember when you said that we shouldn't criticize these "liberal" organizations? Maybe that's not such a good idea:

Soon after the election, the Administration began corralling the big liberal DC interest groups into a variety of organizations and communication networks through which they telegraphed their wishes -- into a virtual veal pen. The 8:45 am morning call co-hosted by the "liberal" Center for American Progress, Unity 09, and Common Purpose are just a few of the overt ways that the White House controls its left flank and maintains discipline.

My own experience with the Veal Pen came indirectly, when some of them had the temerity to launch a campaign against Blue Dogs. They were rebuked and humiliated in front of their peers as a lesson to them all at a Common Purpose meeting, which is run by lobbyist Erik Smith. White House communications director Ellen Moran attends. It isn't an arms-length relationship between these groups and the administration.

A few weeks ago, Rahm Emanuel showed up at a Common Purpose meeting and called these liberal groups "fucking stupid" for going after Blue Dogs on health care and ordered them not to do so any more. Since that time, to the best of my knowledge, none of them have.

Which means that the teabaggers were in perfect position to harvest all of the discontent over the bank bailout, and no coherent liberal critique was offered. I heard it over and over again -- if you wanted to criticize the White House on financial issues, your institutional funding would dry up instantly. The Obama campaign successfully telegraphed to donors that they should cut off Fund for America, which famously led to its demise. It wasn't the last time something like that happened -- just ask those who were receiving institutional money who criticized the White House and saw their funding cut, at the specific request of liberal institutional leaders who now principally occupy their time by brown nosing friends and former co-workers in the White House.

And so the groups in the DC veal pen stay silent. They leadership gets gets bought off by cocktail parties at the White House while the interests of their members get sold out. How many have openly pushed back against the Administration on Don't Ask, Don't Tell or DOMA? Well, not many. Most tried to satisfy their LGBT members by outsourcing activism to other organizations, or proving their bona fides by getting involved in the Prop 8 battle that is not directly toxic to the White House. It's a chickenshit sidestep that betrays their members in the interest of personal gain, which they justify with feeble self-serving palliatives about the importance of "maintaining a seat at the table."

So where are the liberal groups in all of this? Van Jones was a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Where are they? As Jeremy Scahill notes, I guess they have better things to do, like argue for more war:

"Reading the Center for American Progress‘ new report supporting President Obama’s escalation of the US war against Afghanistan is a very powerful reminder of how much neoliberals and neocons are alike. This, of course, is not some genius observation, particularly since CAP and the neocons are making it hard to miss, what with their love triangle with the war. Indeed, CAP’s launch event for its report, "Sustainable Security in Afghanistan: Crafting an Effective and Responsible Strategy for the Forgotten Front," included a leading neocon, Frederick Kagan and was promoted by William Kristol’s new version of the Project for a New American Century, the Foreign Policy Initiative. So, here is part of what we are seeing unfold: Running parallel to the bi-partisan war machine within the official government is a coordinated campaign in the shadow government — the think tanks. Or, as Naomi Klein describes them, the people paid to think by the makers of tanks. CAPs particular role in this campaign appears to be attempting to sell Obama’s war."

CAP's John Podesta is also a partner in the Podesta Group, his brother's lobbying shop that is representing WalMart against the Employee Free Choice Act. This morning on Fox & Friends, Podesta wouldn't say a word in Jones' defense for doing something no worse than what elected Republican members of Congress do on a daily basis. The message is loud and clear: incur the wrath of the right wing, and you're on your own.

Wow, is that a way to encourage your team or what.

If these groups, if these liberal leaders, let Jones just hang there while Glenn Beck pounds his chest and celebrates the scalp, we have no liberal institutions. What we have are a bunch of neoliberal enablers who have found a nice comfortable place in the DC establishment that they don't want to jeopardize, a place on the new K-Street gravy train that they don't want to lose. Dropping Van Jones from their rolodex is a small price to pay.

If there is going to be a serious progressive movement in this country capable of standing up for health care against an industry that spends $1.4 million a day on lobbying, we can't just look to the members of the Progressive Caucus and say "hey, you, get something done." They need cover. They need to know that they will be supported. And people like Van Jones who have given their lives to causes we say we value like prison reform and environmental advocacy need to know that they will be defended, and not handed over to Glenn Beck as an acceptable casualty in the battle for K-Street dollars.

Here's Jeremy Scahill (well versed on the BlackWater issue) on these wonderful liberal organizations you said we shouldn't criticize.

Worth note, Beckwin, is how these same totallynotstabbingyouintheback liberal organizations use the very same argument you use, even for the most vile things. How is this possible? Easy, because the little argument you used is used exactly to avoid having to discuss the details. It relies on painting yourself as the pragmatic, practical, realistic person who has amazing knowledge of what is going on and how best to achieve results, while painting the other side as having their heads in the clouds, without you once even having to prove how the compromise would actually benefit us or lead in the future to a better result.

That is exactly how, for example, they can use your own arguments to say you are idealistic because you support the public option (i assume you still want it). The argument has no basis on reality, it is a rhetorical blugeoning tool.

Have a nice day Beckwin!

[Beckwin]

I can also use your arguments to say that we should allow republicans to be elected instead of the democrats these groups support.

anyhow I still think it's more beneficial to simply shift support to the groups who do get things done rather than wage some campaign against the liberal institutions that aren't up to snuff at the moment. Otherwise, if you make a big focus on those failing liberal groups, you leave a window wide open for the right wing to coattail the criticisms, allowing THEM to take on the mantle of bipartisanship (look see even hardworking, honest, respectable American liberals want to take down these extremist Marxist scumbag hollywood elite liberal conspiracies. let's work together to tell America about it!).

[Beckwin]

and again, just because someone is using a similar argument to mine for something completely unrelated to what I used it for, does not mean I approve of this unrelated thing.

the whole van jones thing was bullshit.

creating a public option instead of going full-bore on universal, single-payer is not bullshit.

you're really trying too hard man.

especially considering I've donated more to cpcc than any major liberal institution (read: 100ish bucks this year, and have never donated to the mainstream institutions), and signed more petitions etc.

[Kuya]

To Beckwin, obtaining power and keeping it is more important than staying true to the things he belives in. Supossedly.

[Kuya]

That is how, even though his own eyes can plainly read, he can continue to claim that we must support groups that are explicitely intent on enforcing neoliberal policy. Whether it be an economic style where all money should go to a small class of financial elites or American military adventures.

[Kuya]

and again, just because someone is using a similar argument to mine for something completely unrelated to what I used it for, does not mean I approve of this unrelated thing.

the whole van jones thing was bullshit.

creating a public option instead of going full-bore on universal, single-payer is not bullshit.

you're really trying too hard man.

especially considering I've donated more to cpcc than any major liberal institution (read: 100ish bucks this year, and have never donated to the mainstream institutions), and signed more petitions etc.

You did not seem to understand, unsurprisingly. They are saying we should abbandon the public option because it is, the same way you said it, the practical and pragmatic thing to do. Like you, they never explained with great specificity why that is so. Because the argument that you're being pragmatic is nothing but rhetoric.

Let me reiterate the point:

Your argument about your considerations being based on political reality is false. You do not know what they are. Much like they don't either, but they act like they do to advance their agenda.

[Beckwin]

where did I say to support these groups? I just said don't bother attacking them; instead focus your support on the groups that get results you want. and yes, these groups I feel are in the wrong, both ideologically and pragmatically, for abandoning a public option- it's poor judgment on their part. so support the groups who show better judgment.

you can talk about ideals all day but if you can't start making them happen, to the point of even making regression easier, you're just jerking yourself off and patting yourself on the back for doing it.

it's pretty easy to say that leftist revolutionary theory has a lot of flaws, largely because it would require a populace with a different mindset. fostering a change toward that mindset takes time.

[Ohaigaiz]

I should l2government so I know what everyone's talking about.

[Kiarax]

Not worth it.

[Kuya]

I think i got the solution to this Beckwin. I don't believe that any argument based on reason or emotion will convince you, rather, we must rely on experience to educate you. It would perhaps be of great benefit if the American polity were to descend to such extremes that you'd have no choice but to abbandon your lofty ideas that seem to seemingly be born out of some affection for institutions that are no longer capable of effective governance. If the government were to dive further into extremism (going even further with torture, going even further with wars, going even further with detention), the economy were to collapse even further or to a larger degree with only a few benefitting, and violence and disorder to reign supreme in the american republic, you'd have no choice but to demand and desire a complete change of system, and never trust a politician again.

Hmm, with this into consideration, perhaps more betrayals from the democrats and other liberal institutions, and the republicans winning in 2012 would be the best scenario.

[Conrad]

lol

[Kuya]

Therefore, if one wishes the status quo to die, the only true solution is disaster.