Skip to main content

View Diary: Misunderstanding Obama's Nobel Peace Prize (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you (0+ / 0-)

    weren't "quiet," you groused about it here for a few days, and then you left to grouse about it, and sneer about the site in general, repeatedly at two other blogs. And the "smear," as I recall, was "refuted" only in the minds of HRC loyalists.

    That you "didn't care" about the candidates is a story you've successfully sold to the rubes, but as someone who was around you at the other place, I know better. There you did not hide your deep and early-formed disdain for Obama and his supporters (you introduced us, early and often, to the term "Obamabots," remember?). Too, you were there so protective of HRC that you demanded--and got--the creation of a separate, special thread, where all criticism of her had to be cabined, so that you wouldn't have to look at it.

    That I witnessed that, and have meanwhile had to watch you out here selling "don't care" snake-oil, all the while piously proclaiming yourself to be someone who cares about "honesty" (unless, of course, it's something like Pickler picking at Obama, at which time honesty is of no concern, see long thread cited above); well, excuse me if there's some turning of my stomach.

    That you continue to have no respect for the truth is evidenced in your claim that I am a "cultist" who "no matter what he does, or how he compromises, you will fawningly support him." A quick search gives the lie to that statement, but, as I said, you and truth are strangers to one another.

    Keep shovelin' the shinola, Turk. That's what you're good at.

    Never cared for it much--mendacity--myself. Never will.

    •  actually (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the smear was refuted by factcheck and other independent analysts. and many graphics experts on this site refuted it, and at least two fpers very publicly criticized the fper who promoted it. i guess all are hrc loyalists, in your little tiny binary world.

      and i was very critical of obama, very publicly. as i was of edwards, before eventually supporting him. as i was of hillary, before eventually supporting her. i was protective of hillary because people like you were so twisted with hatred that you would believe any and all lies about her. whatever. she works for obama now. they seem to have put the election behind them, but some don't seem to be able to.

      and i recall in that other forum you expressing your animosity for hillary in very personal terms. even that you hated her voice. utterly rational, in your little tiny binary world. i, otoh, only turned against obama after mcclurkin, after first posting a rec list diary that expressed the hope that he'd resolve it amicably. which he most certainly did not.

      as for mendacity- you live it. you were the one whose politics becamse so personal. mine was based on issues. and after the final primaries, i posted that hillary had lost, and that people needed to support obama. and as the puma thing spun away, i told them that if they really supported hillary they needed to support her candidate- obama. i've always been about the issues. you're a personality cultist of the highest order.

      now, shouldn't you be off on one of the post-peeder sites, documenting every atrocity, as you pursue your bizarre obsession?

      •  i don't like (0+ / 0-)

        fighting with you, because it's just sad. Your public persona in those days was mostly Potemkin stuff: you know it, and I know it. All during the fall and winter in that other place you were not only ceaselessly slipping the shiv to Obama, but providing a running commentary on the people on Kos who were and were not "Obamabots," and how deep you considered their affliction. Pretty "personal," wouldn't you say, Turk? Of course, some of these very same people you now support--assuming, of course, that they are sufficiently critical of Obama.

        Once again you lie that I am a "personality cultist," this time of "the highest order," and one "so twisted with hatred that [I] would believe any and all lies about [HRC]." You of course provide no evidence for this, you do not respond to the links I provided: you know it's not true, you're simply angry, and it comforts you to believe that my criticism is coming from that place.

        I don't recall slagging HRC's voice, but it wouldn't surprise me if I did: such criticism was not uncommon there. Which is what really frosted you: people there were not willing to heed the Wisdom of Turkana. And that is very important to you. We patiently put up with your months of machine-gunning of Obama and his "bots," but when criticism of HRC began seeping in, you got the vapors, and demanded that it be confined to a thread where you wouldn't have to look at it. Eventually even that wasn't enough, and you flounced out, just as you flounced out of kos, for the warm embrace of the HRC-friendly sites Left Coaster and Talk Left.

        You're a dishonest person, and that's too bad. But like your confederate Armando, you do have your fans. And that's what's really important, isn't it?

        •  Um...just wanted to say hello, blueness... (0+ / 0-)

          As my Grandma used to say, "Well, you really took the hide offa him/her~!" lolol

          Please know I find your considerable ability to keep the record straight in so many areas, astonishing~!

          Another colloquialism my Grandmother used was one of giving someone "a good dressin' down".

          You never cease to amuse and

        •  ah (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          so, now we've changed the story, yet again...

          yes- i criticized the fanatics of all candidates. i had the edwards people pretty pissed at me, for a while, for asking pointed questions in their lovefest diaries. i may have even picked up a tr or two. but i ended up backing him, for a while. i did have open disdain for cultists, as i still do. my feelings for the candidates themselves was very different. i gave up on obama, himself, as opposed to the obamabots, only after mcclurkin. that's the reality, if you care for such, anymore. and the difference between you and me is that i have no more use for the puma crowd than for the obamabot crowd, some of whom, i am certain, would have gone the puma route, had hillary won. but then there are the slinkerwinks and icebergslims, who passionately supported obama, and who now just as passionately criticize him when he lets them down- on the issues. some obama supporters have intelligence and class and integrity.

          do you deny having claimed that just hearing her voice on the radio was what finally decided you against clinton, and that you then got more and more viciously opposed, as time went by? i had no problem with disagreements, there. i was upset when some personal differences caused people there to leave. i was done when it became a place to stockpile ammo against clinton. i was sick of the clinton hatred. as i even said there, at one point, i was no fan of hers, but because i had come to terms with the possibility of her being the nominee, i deplored the level of dishonest vitriol. otoh, even before i left dk, i was defending obama from the dishonest smears, such as the lying-about-being-a-muslim crap. at tlc, i wrote that clinton needed to fire billy shaheen. otoh, i defended samantha power- not on her awful statement, but on her importance- and said that i hoped she wouldn't have to be cut loose. there are many such examples. as always, i stayed focused on the issues. unlike you, who continue to lie, even now, and whose bizarre obsession with armando is just sad. even childishly going after him at other sites.

          keep telling yourself that i'm the dishonest one. the word doesn't mean what you think it means.

          •  yes, (0+ / 0-)

            I deny that "just hearing her voice on the radio was what finally decided [me] against Clinton." One of my very first posts on this site, years before primary season, said that I don't do family dynasties, just like I don't do generals. I discussed that there, as I've discussed it here.

            It wasn't "a place to stockpile ammo against clinton," for chrissake. People were simply venting about her, just as you'd vented all those months about Obama and his "bots." And people left that joint over "personal differences" rhythmically. Your disappearance coincided not with any of that, but with your ferment over the anti-Clinton posts.

            No, as I set forth above, you didn't "stay[] focused on the issues." But that's your line, and dern if you're not going to stick with it.

            I have no "bizarre obsession with armando." I am not the one who follows him adoringly from site to site, or who took to linking to him so frequently it was like the guy wrote the bible or something.

            Thanks for at least not repeating the "cultist" smear in this most recent post.

            •  actually (0+ / 0-)

              one member of that site- with whom i am on fine terms, now- did want to create a thread to stockpile ammo. that was when i left. and you ignore that i had been as hard on some edwards supporters as i was on the obamabots. and yes, i did stay focused on the issues. when i criticized obama himself, it was on the issues. as it is now. his worshippers i criticize for their idolatry. i don't do idols. dynasties i weigh on the merits. i don't support someone because they're from a dynasty, but neither do i oppose someone. i'd support rfk jr., should he ever run for governor or the senate, in a heartbeat.

              and i'm not sure how following armando at tl is adoringly. once again, your criticism reveals more about you than about me. and if you don't think you have a bizarre obsession with him, perhaps you ought to recall some of your antics, here and at other places. as far as i can tell, he barely knows you exist, yet you keep bringing him up. we've had some pointed disagreements, but it doesn't get personal. and yes, i link him, just as i link digby and mcjoan- and krugman, for that matter. whatever your personal animus, armando remains one of the most astute political analysts out there. not by any means perfect, as he would be the first to admit, but smarter and more on point than 99% of the rest of them.

              •  i do recall (0+ / 0-)

                his antics, here and at other places. He is a sadist and an energy vampire, a blowhard who is nearly always wrong, who tore this site apart and then went on to shoot DD in the stomach. He certainly knew I existed when you and andgarden were helping him cry in his beer about "Dog Soldiers." It is kind of Jeralyn to provide him with a place where he can turn blue and throw his rattle. I'm just glad I don't have to see it. And when I tried to follow you at LC, after a while I just couldn't any more, not with all the links back to his bloviating at TL.

                I'm glad you don't do idols. Which is why you should rethink armando. I don't do idols, either. Just like I don't do dynasties. I don't care who they are.

                The thread was created by "one member of that site--with whom [you are] on fine terms, now--" because you pitched a fit about anti-Clinton material in the main threads. You hung around for a while after that thread was created, then vamoosed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site