This Is Some Freaky Stuff Right Here!

[g5000]

One of my pet peeves is when someone starts a topic with nothing but a link in their opening post. No commentary, no quote from the link of whatever they think is of relevance, just the link. Even worse, there is sometimes just a link to a video.

This suggests either laziness or cowardice, depending on the situation.

Another fact of life we seem to have to accept is that when some issue is hot, hot, hot there will be umpteen topics about it all at the same time.

For instance, Mitt Romney's hidden camera 47% speech. A gazillion topics about it yesterday.

To counter his embarassment over that video, the Romney campaign tried to get everyone to focus on a clip from a speech Obama made in 1998. And it is that clumsy effort which is the subject of this topic.

It is one thing to open a topic and just post a link. It is another thing to open a topic for which there are already several other topics on the same subject.

But for a shitload of people to start a bunch of topics with almost identical titles, right down to the quotation marks...well, that has to earn the 2012 Copy and Paste award for mindless dronesmanship!

Are they all getting the same Romney campaign email? What is going on?


No wonder Obama is winning when his competition has a dearth of originality:

 

[Liability]

Mitt's ill-considered comment was more recent that 1998, but it too was HELD for a period of time UNTIL the Obama-leaning left wing media felt it appropriate to time the release.

Now what the present infestation in the Oval Office said in 1998 may be a bit dated, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the dipshit STILL believes in redistribution.

The same person subsequently LAMENTED that the power of the SCOTUS did not include "redistributive" justice -- whatever the fuck he meant by that, exactly.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK .

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

-- Then STATE Senator Barack Obama, 2001. IN CONTEXT.OBAMA TALKS ABOUT CONSTITUTION. THE TRUTH - YouTube

 

[g5000]

The "timed release" was exactly what I was thinking yesterday. I imaging both campaigns are holding a pile of what they believe to be bombshells to be dropped at strategic times in September and October.

So expect more carpet bombing from their respective hive minds.

.

 

[Ravi]

They probably all read the same rightwingloon websites. Funny none of them are clever enough to come up with their own thread title.