Skip to main content

View Diary: Boehner blinks, then stabs Ted Cruz in back (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Rule of law or rule of genocide. Choose. Now. (0+ / 0-)

    Pick a level of acceptable collective slaughter between none and 100%.

    Come on commit. It's justice we're serving. Don't dally. Name your price.

    •  Well, sadly, that choice has already been made (0+ / 0-)

      If it's 'rule of law' or 'rule of genocide', with no in-between, then the Bush Administration chose the latter for us. We can't take it back now. Especially since the Obama administration keeps it up, killing people in other countries (doing military operations in them without the permission or knowledge of their governments, in the absence of any state of declared war), even despite 14-year-olds who have been shot in the head coming to beg him to stop doing it because it causes more terrorism. So I guess, by your lights, we'd just better get the guns out and start killing everyone in sight.

      Fuck. I promised myself I wasn't going to rant tonight. But Jesus, holier-than-thou bullshit pushes my buttons faster than almost anything else does.

      •  Re: What I advise (0+ / 0-)

        I'm as strong advocate of deterrence in kind. People behave when threats they 'get' are directed against their possible bad behavior.

        Is this bad of me?

        •  Is it bad (3+ / 0-)

          when politicians take food and medical care away from poor kids, for no other reason than to score political points?

          If a child dies as direct result of this, what do you see as fair response to this bad behavior?

          A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

          by onionjim on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 12:19:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fair point. And no one's stopped them in years (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            from killing children with a pen because the overall society's tolerance point has yet to be exceeded.

            Those who kill with the pen (public and corporate officials alike) have yet to receive a signal it's dangerous for them to do so, thus a body count that includes refusal to pass more sensible gun regulation has racked up, what? Call it a round 15,000 otherwise-living children per year going on 20-30,000 per annum with sequester cuts and ten times that if there's a social collapse.

            I'll hazard a guess that a default scenario will exceed the American people's tolerance for deadly penmanship.

            •  This subject could be (0+ / 0-)

              expanded to a discussion. We have politicians clamoring for bombs to save lives, and at the same time cutting food stamps for the poor. These folks can't get enough blood on their hands, they go in day after day and call for more.

              The extra judicial killing is another example. Its not legal, and Obama has been unable to stop the policy, although I believe he would like to. Its a failed program.

              A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

              by onionjim on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 09:06:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Slaughter? (0+ / 0-)

      Assuming that you mean that in a figurative sense (legal action, nasty ad campaigns, embarrassing rallies ouside reps' local offices, primaries against tea partiers financed by the US Chamber of Commerce) yes.  I had to go back and read this thread just to make sure that nobody was advocating violence; they were not. If you mean "slaughter" as in "republican legislators slaughtered Ted Cruz  at a private caucus lunch. He had no coherent plan to offer."  Then yes, let's go for 100%.

      •  Maybe time to regroup here (6+ / 0-)

        I think the Tea Party is a willfully destructive, openly violence-minded movement that has convinced itself that it must burn the village in order to save it and fully expects a parade and a victory lap afterward.

        They speak, think and exist in a context of power, authority and will to grab and leverage same to forward a nihilist agenda. Theirs is the way of ultimatum: Give us what we want or else.

        They don't do negotiations. They don't do concessions. They don't back off. They never, ever apologize. They know exactly one thing: Go forward or die. If going forward requires cutting corners, so be it. If it requires sacrificing loyal members, so be it. If it requires destroying the existing government and society...

        Well, that's just it. That's not a possible step that's their goal.

        Somewhere along the way the minor detail that I get that this is an existential struggle was overlooked by some folks above.

        I live in the Carolinas. Believe me, I get it. I grew up with people who would as soon we torch DC. I've worked with people who train on the gun range every chance they get in anticipation of a coming social collapse. Same colleagues were pissed that the 2011 default never happened. They were openly angry at Boehner for even talking to Obama, never mind holding a vote on a debt ceiling deal.

        They're not negotiating. They're not those kind of hijackers. They're the flying the planes into the buildings kind of hijackers.

        And all this chortling about parliamentary tricks above won't stop them. They'll have to be stopped, either by force or by executive order backed by force.

        Now, we MAY even see a deal today. I have to think it will be made clear to the House GOP that the President has his own oath of office and a vast library of legal and practical precedent to support defending the country from all threats foreign and domestic.

        That, if his choices per Louis Gohmert and Sarah Palin are to be impeached for inaction on the default scenario OR fact impeachment for action on the default? That the President has no downside to acting.

        These sort of extraordinary measures, under color of law and prior practice, is proper, because he is the President.

        And I think this is where this goes: Trading imminent financial crisis for a constitutional one which, while I think the President will win on political and legal merits, will have other serious consequences in terms of Republic's well being.

        So, oof. I think we're on the verge of stepping through the looking glass. Even if there's a deal. Hell, a deal might even accelerate the partisan tensions further, frustrating both camps that we're even coexisting.

        But I'd rather have a strong intact Republic fending off the outraged reactionaries than a shattered super sized version of the former Yugoslavia. For while we run some risks of strife in the former we will face an absolute bloodbath down the other. And that would be bad.

        And signaling quite clearly that those of us who didn't sign the Tea Party suicide pact can and will defend this country from their hodgepodge of libertarian and fundamentalist notions baked together by a few deep-pocketed billionaire crazies. Hell, no. We are not going taking that hit sitting down. This time, invoking the 911 metaphor, the planes will not make it to their targets. None of them.

        And I suspect the President's got this.

        "Hand wringing", someone said. People should be terrified of what could come to pass and then quite resolved that stopping the crazy is 100% righteous and then confident that there are worse places to be than on the blue team in this quarrel: on the bench with the red squad, for example.

        OK, rant concluded. Carry on. :)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site