Sh*t Democrats say

By Michael J. Smith on Monday March 5, 2012 10:21 PM

An old friend of mine -- let's call her Aretina -- is a thoroughgoing Obama cultist, alas, but I still have hopes for her. She recently responded offline to an earlier post here abut the recent Effective Police State And Suppression Of Dissent Act (EPSASOD).

I hope Aretina will forgive me for heartlessly using her as a classic example of the disordered thinking that enables otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people to believe that the Democratic Party is going to actually deliver on any of the things that matter to them -- and to me, I might add.

Aretina's first line of defense: Nothing to see here, folks, move along. EPSASOD doesn't really matter; it doesn't change anything. Citation in support: A blog post from, which if, you read to the end, maybe doesn't support Aretina's case as much as she might like. The piece ends up making the case that we already have a police state, so how much difference could this latest enormity make? Which is, of course, a fairly good point.

Aretina seems to have felt, upon reflection, this this gambit may have been a bit feeble, because she followed up with another:

This president is under a record assassination threat level.... it doesn't seem unreasonable that any moves in that direction should be punishable by something a little stiffer than a D.C. trespassing law.
Now this is of course much richer. Let's disregard the fact that it contradicts the earlier argument(*). What this amounts to is a nice liberal Democrat -- a great believer in the Bill Of Rights -- supporting police-state legislation because President Sparkle Pony might otherwise be in some supposed danger.

Never mind that the President already gets as much protection as a human being can possibly get, and that EPSASOD goes well beyond protecting the president, in a breathtakingly sweeping fashion.

The piquant thing for me, of course, is the liberal fondness for 'stiff' laws. All this talk of stiffness invariably makes me reach for the saltpeter. How I wish the enforcement sector's stiff nightsticks would all strangely wilt, as in the Viennese doctor's famous casebook.


(*) Yer honor, I wasn't there at all, at all. And besides, that whore of an Ulsterman threw the first punch!

Comments (9)


Security, efficiency, stability and order. Good liberal values. Good conservative virtues. The four telegenic cavaliers of the bipartisan apocalypse, riding the 3-D horses of instruction.

The problem with trying to determine why otherwise intelligent people are "getting it wrong" is that they're not "getting it wrong." They understand at some level what is going on, why it's evil, etc.; they're supporting it not because they pragmatically believe it's a lesser evil, but because they appreciate the protection of their middle-/upper-class lifestyles, and the chance to be part of a really cool, really big empire that blows stuff up.

Coming back at them time and again with various logical reasons why their arguments--for supporting the empire and its tyrant deathlords--are incorrect is not going to convince them of anything, because they already know the arguments are incorrect.

Why does Joe Sixpack keep "believing" in supply-side economics and the Republican agenda?

Why does Abby the CPA keep "believing" in Obama's battle to limit the Republican agenda?

Same reason.

Al Schumann:

I think pwogs are, in many ways, capitalism's finest product. They're obedient to authority, bright, cooperative, gentle with children and domestic animals, very productive and they take charge of their own operant conditioning. They police each other's opinions, without violence, and they have superbly polished apples on hand to give to their teachers.


That polished apple sounds waxy and dry, major Al

but the self conditioning feature...sounds grand ....a catalytic free lunch

I'll buy me a few million for my simerica game


I just want to say thanks for all of the great posts lately MJS.


".... The cult of the presidency has gone far enough..."

the yappy bark of that
might make a bright pwog admire
a shabby comrade smirk


they're supporting it not because they pragmatically believe it's a lesser evil, but because they appreciate the protection of their middle-/upper-class lifestyles,

Hey, who wouldn't? The first thing I ask about any political change is how it's going to effect me, and I won't lie, the ones that directly effect me are the ones more likely to stir me into direct action.

My problem is, apparently this fact weighs heavily on their conscience, and they compensate by attacking people who actually have principles, even when those principles are ones they allegedly support.

and the chance to be part of a really cool, really big empire that blows stuff up.

This part's a lot less excusable.

Mr. Schumann, that was so good and so true that I cried tears of humor.

Mr. Christopher, yeah, and also pain. The problem with their equation is that, even though the empire supports their middle-/upper-class lifestyles, it's a very limited sort of support, that can end at any time. But then, these are the people who use, like, credit cards and mortgages and stuff.


this president is under a record assassination threat level.
I bet this is something that is not new. President usually do have a lot.
Interesting post.

My blog : règles anniversaires abondantes 

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Monday March 5, 2012 10:21 PM.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31