Dodd/Kucinich 08': Election Blu-Galoo

[auto-da-fey]

Heck, Clarence freakin' Thomas used to be active in the civil rights movement.

Is this true? If so, I was not aware of this.

Admittedly I'm more militantly anti-pr0n than a lot people (sorry whit), so feel free to ignore me.  It just sticks in my craw because gender issues seem to be a blind spot for many an otherwise super-liberal dude.

I know this is a tangent, and not a point anybody wants to pursue here, but not being anti-porn need not necessarily amount to obliviousness to gender issues. Just sayin'.

[dieblucasdie]

Well, and there's also a big difference between "not being anti-porn" and "being Larry Flynt." 

edit:  I know your name was in there (mainly as a joke) and I know you're not that way; I'm saying Larry Flynt is *definitely* that way, and I'm inclined to think Kucinich is too.  At minimum he's putting principle aside for $$$.

[auto-da-fey]

Yeah, I know what you mean, and I don't disagree (though Flynt has made substantive contributions to freedom of speech, not that this mitigates misogyny [though the infamous meat-grinder Hustler cover was intended as satire, for whatever that's worth]). An obligatory comment just seemed in order. Especially since I've been watching a lot of porn lately.

[Andrew_TSKS]

Admittedly I'm more militantly anti-pr0n than a lot people (sorry whit), so feel free to ignore me.  It just sticks in my craw because gender issues seem to be a blind spot for many an otherwise super-liberal dude.

being anti-porn is not liberal.

edit: whit handled the whole gender thing better than i did, but i'm standing by the other sentence i originally posted. there's nothing liberal about censorship.

[dieblucasdie]

I'm not going down that road with you, because we'll talk past each other for a couple pages on it; I honestly don't expect everyone to be anti-porn.  But I think blatant misogyny is illiberal, and I think Flynt's/Hustler's various stunts over the years are pretty undeniably misogynist. 

[Andrew_TSKS]

i feel like you're definitely taking the position that porn is inherently anti-feminist and should therefore be suppressed. i can't get behind that. if you are specifically focusing on larry flynt, fine, but your orignal comments, while using flynt as a jumping-off point, were wider in scope. i'm more responding to that than anything. i'm fine with you having beef with larry flynt, though as whit pointed out, he's not all bad.

[dieblucasdie]

yeah, for the purposes of this discussion, my beef is with Flynt.  As for the pr0n issue at large, I have my opinions but I also think it's a complicated issue on which intelligent people can disagree; I don't judge anyone on it. 

[Little Sixes Little Nines]

Sorry to interrupt guys, but I can't believe a Democrat can be pro-death penalty. I was all "yay obama" but now i'm thinking "fuck American politics completely"
continue

[dieblucasdie]

If it helps, Clinton's as bad or worse

The sad reason for it is that any post-9/11 anti-death penalty candidate would be asked, "BUT WHAT ABOUT BIN LADEN?!?!?!" in a debate.  Probably by Tim Russert.  That fuck.

[Little Sixes Little Nines]

The reply should be 'lock him up for natural life without any possibility of him commiting suicide, or "they'll" think he's in paradise'.

[dieblucasdie]

Why do you hate freedom, LSLN?

[dieblucasdie]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

Hillary Clinton doesn't care if you voted for Obama; she's gonna make you vote for her anyway.

Though really I can't imagine any delegates actually switching sides unless the DNC sanctioned it.  Which I suppose is possible, and even worse.

[Andrew_TSKS]

i still have a bit of faith in howard dean and the other party elders to step in and stop all this bullshit if hillary really tries to put those kinds of plans into action. i've heard some pundits talking about the fact that gore, dodd, richardson, edwards, and biden haven't endorsed anybody in this race, and saying that it looks like those 5 might be setting themselves up as impartial party elder types, in order to arbitrate if things seem like they could go beyond, say, march 4. the dnc and the party elders have a vested interest in getting the party to unite.

i think, by the way, that all of the things i've been hearing lately about this kind of stuff really points towards how little interest beyond advancement of self that the clinton crew has in this election. i think they'd torpedo their entire party in order to advance themselves, and they seem like they're at least laying the groundwork to do exactly that. i have no respect for that kind of behavior.

[dieblucasdie]

I actually think that if it's Obama who ends up behind in pledged delegates, he'll likely cut a deal and bow out.  Clinton-- if not so sure, especially if the delegate count is very close and she can claim the lead with those superdelegates. 

But yeah, I think it's likely that this nomination will be decided behind closed doors in one fashion or another.  I just can't see either Obama or Clinton winning enough delegates for this to be a sure thing.

[dieblucasdie]

Oh, man, this comic gold (even though Carlson is a total douche):

TUCKER CARLSON: If you’re going to mandate health insurance, what if people don’t, don’t obey? And she has said “we’re going to garnish wages.” Which wages, and how much? Cause she’s the substance candidate.

KIKI MCLEAN: She is the substance candidate, and she’s looking at the options. She’s also said, Senator Obama’s team has tried to put out an attack saying she’s going to force people who can’t afford it to pay for it themselves and that’s just not true.

CARLSON: But she’s said herself, she’s said herself, that she’d be willing to garnish wages. I think that’s pretty much exactly what she said.

MCLEAN: She said in one interview that’s something to look at. I think the reality is that she’s also focusing on bringing everybody — here’s the thing about universal coverage —

CARLSON: She’s soft-selling the stick. She’s selling the carrot; she’s not talking about the stick, the punishment for not going along with her vision of the Brave New World.

MCLEAN: The reality is, that we’re going to have to bring everybody into the plan, and there’s going to have to be —

CARLSON: Punishment.

MCLEAN: Outcomes. There’s going to have to be an outcome for people who don’t participate because it all affects us. Remember, we are a community that lives here.

CARLSON [bursting into laughter]: I love that: an “outcome”!

MCLEAN: There has to be an outcome.

Awesome.

[RavingLunatic]

The notion that Kucinich is just like every other politician because he accepted money from Larry Flynt is asinine.

[hannah]

Kucinich ... accept[ing] money from Larry Flynt is as[s-tastic].

[elpollodiablo]

Oh, man, this comic gold (even though Carlson is a total douche):

TUCKER CARLSON: If you’re going to mandate health insurance, what if people don’t, don’t obey? And she has said “we’re going to garnish wages.” Which wages, and how much? Cause she’s the substance candidate.

KIKI MCLEAN: She is the substance candidate, and she’s looking at the options. She’s also said, Senator Obama’s team has tried to put out an attack saying she’s going to force people who can’t afford it to pay for it themselves and that’s just not true.

CARLSON: But she’s said herself, she’s said herself, that she’d be willing to garnish wages. I think that’s pretty much exactly what she said.

MCLEAN: She said in one interview that’s something to look at. I think the reality is that she’s also focusing on bringing everybody — here’s the thing about universal coverage —

CARLSON: She’s soft-selling the stick. She’s selling the carrot; she’s not talking about the stick, the punishment for not going along with her vision of the Brave New World.

MCLEAN: The reality is, that we’re going to have to bring everybody into the plan, and there’s going to have to be —

CARLSON: Punishment.

MCLEAN: Outcomes. There’s going to have to be an outcome for people who don’t participate because it all affects us. Remember, we are a community that lives here.

CARLSON [bursting into laughter]: I love that: an “outcome”!

MCLEAN: There has to be an outcome.

Awesome.

Valorizing personal choice is a decidedly uninteresting and Republican thing to do, in my view.

*I've got to leave lab here in a second but I just didn't want you to take this as like an endorsement of gov't coercion; it has more to do with a lot of thinking I've been doing about choice in America and the cult of the individual that has stemmed from rereading Infinite Jest and some other things. So yeah while her plan might not be the best I think preserving the golden American ideal of PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL CHOICE at any cost is pretty ridiculous and counterproductive given how fucking stupid the majority of us are

[Andrew_TSKS]

that's right, blucas! pollo, for one, welcomes having his wages garnished if he can't afford health insurance!

[Antero]

I think I've been reading too many recipes recently, because every time I see "garnished" I think, "with what?"

[dieblucasdie]

yeah, I'm not "valorizing personal choice," I just don't to be forced to buy something if I can't afford it.
But really, I just thought the whole "outcome" business was hilarious.

[hannah]

Obama with a 13% margin over Clinton in WI right now

[jebreject]

BARACK AND ROLL, WISCONSIN

[davy]

woot!

[girl]

BARACK AND ROLL, WISCONSIN

Really? You really just said "BARACK AND ROLL"?