Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Please, Shut Up. You're Offending Your Leaders

chicago dyke's picture

Just shut up already. You, DFH. And all your uncivil friends. Nancy doesn't want you in her flowerbed (and gosh, I actually understand that one!) so please just go home, wash up, be quiet, and stop making a mess. The Adults are in charge, and all that yelling isn't helping anything. There are telcos to protect and a war to fund.

"Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."

Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

Public life. Public servant. Public discourse.

What was I saying? Oh, yes, do shut up, be quiet, stop talking, go home, go to bed, and otherwise let the TV do the "living" for you. That's what Nancy cares about- what "happens" on the teevee. You, starving homeless person with a T-shirt? Get stuffed.

But please, do so quietly. h/t a Chimpster via the Crack Den.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

Perhaps she could have them tasered?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

Should we be actively ashamed, or only passively astonished that she duped us so long and so well?

The quote above has been out there for weeks -- why didn't we use it before, unless we did?

Why don't we watch what they do instead of believing what they say?

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I am sick to death of hearing the fake opposition Dems in Congress moan about not having enough votes to end the war in Iraq. They give lip service to the myth that the only way to end the war is to write a bill saying "the war is now over" and send it to Bush for a prompt veto, then override the veto. They then throw up their hands, saying "Well, as you can see, we don't have the votes to override any veto, so there's no way to end the war. Sorry folks."

This is disingenious and vividly illustrates who the Dems are really serving: the establishment, not their constituents.

Here's how to end the war: No bill specifically ending the war is even necessary. Remember those supplemental funding bills the Cheney regime has to constantly ask for, to continue funding the Iraq war piecemeal instead of in yearly lump sums attached to the actual defense budget? That's the achilles' heel of their war effort. The next time Bush asks for another $80 billion or whatever to keep the Iraq bloodbath going, all the Democrats have to do to end the war is to say: NO. To say "We won't allocate one more penny for your illegal war". Last I checked the Dems have a wafer-thin majority in both houses. With no Dems voting for the next spending bill it won't be passed and thus it won't make it to Bush's desk for signing. Bush (and especially his puppetmaster Cheney) may have concentrated an inordinate amount of power in the hands of the executive branch, but even they can't send spending bills to their own desk. That necessarily has to come from Congress. If it never reaches his desk he can't sign it, and will have 2 choices: 1.pull the troops out while there is still enough money left in the pipeline so to speak to allow an orderly withdrawl (and anyone who has five or more brain cells knows that the money isn't going to run out the next day, that's a non-issue that the right wing tries to use as a scare tactic but it is ridiculously dumbed down and simply not true; they don't wait until they have $5 left before asking for another supplemental OK?); or 2.don't pull them out right away, and leave them to wither on the vine in Iraq until the money DOES completely run out and they have to withdraw from Iraq chaotically, burning their supplies and vehicles. Either way the war will end pretty soon if the Dems refuse to vote on supplementals. They don't have to write a bill saying they are cutting off funding; this is only a fig leaf so they can pretend to be doing something to end the war when all they are doing is purposely spinning their wheels. All they have to do is to NOT VOTE ON SUPPLEMENTALS. Pretty effing simple. The people NOW need to DEMAND in so many words that if the Democrats are a genuine opposition party that they will carry out the will of the people and NOT VOTE on supplementals. If they are a fake opposition party as I feel they are, and are acting not in the people's interest but playing for the same team as the Republicans, then continue with more of the same hand-wringing and impotent nonbinding resolutions that resolve nothing. Decision time Democrats. Which are you? Genuine? Or fake opposition? I think I already know the answer to that one but why don't you surprise me?

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I think a lot of Democratic House reps are ambivalent about yanking the troops out of Iraq, because their constituents are still hoping for some sort of miracle. They haven't quite given up wanting the cake and eating it too. Leaders should lead, true, but I think we have to keep working to educate the public as to the hopelessness at this point in the war of the surge or any other military strategy. A lot of Democratic districts' voters simply aren't there yet, unlike San Francisco's vocal majority of anti-war voters. Sure those other districts' voters want to end the war, but they want it to be prettier than it's going to be possible to effect.

Whoever pulls the plug on funding will get the unwarranted blame of stabbing the military effort in the back. The pro-war folks smeared opponents pretty effectively after Vietnam. The same ridiculous story played out in Germany after World War I. The brave, realistic leaders who acknowledged defeat in order to try to move on were pilloried or worse.

Nancy Pelosi is in a tough spot. I don't expect her to find sympathy in the left-leaning blogosphere. Hell, I don't know if I feel sympathy or frustration with her -- a mix, I guess.

Unlike any other political issue, when you're against starting or continuing a war, there's an urgency and desperation that's missing about ending or changing policy about other issues. I remember that despeartion and poignancy from the Vietnam War protests that my parents took me to (in San Francisco, by the way). So I don't blame the buddha builders, the people hanging clothes on Pelosi's topiary trees, etc. Their passion is honest, fraught, necessary. But I don't think we should go after Pelosi with knives. I think our focus should be continuing to educate ourselves, friends, neighbors, and co-workers as to the real situation in Iraq and how it's not going to improve or hold steady by keeping troops there. To that end, things like the blog Armyofdude, etc. are really helpful.

Well, I don't expect this to be a post that many here agree with, but that's how I see it.