(np) big O, say it isn't so...

[David Morris]

Man! talk about pots and kettles.  You don't like "naivete" so you
return "shithead?"  Says more about you than it does me.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> Morris . You are an insulting shithead who for lack of a real argument doles half baked tripe and condescending words like naivete. Nobody ever called you naive so I'm calling you what you are. Full of yourself. Both you an Musikar repeat the same boring shit I've been listening to since the vietnam war salted with insults for anyone who disagrees. If that is manly behavior in your house, I feel sorry for whoever has to put up with it.
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 5:19 PM, David Morris wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> What Laura see as a clear-eyed realism is actually ultra-myopathy.  If
>>>> she can't see the difference between Us versus Them, if she thinks
>>>> corporations are going to make Obama a shoe-in, if she can't see the
>>>> difference between an attempt at accommodation of some of Their goals
>>>> (misguided as it's been) and being in Their camp (and essentially no
>>>> different), then I rest my case...
>>
>> I don't think you've followed my logic at all (my fault, I'm sure), so
>> let me try to be more clear.  I'm not at all arguing about the
>> likelihood of Obama's reelection.  I'm arguing that Laura's view of
>> the political scene/realities is not seeing the forest for the trees:
>>
>> Laura:  "I see the banker-friendly, insurance-industry-loving,
>> war-mongering leg.  Obviously, Henry sees the other leg.  Obama's a
>> shoo-in for a second term, given the love-fest with his corporate
>> backers."
>>
>>> Your argument as seems, essentially, to be:
>>> a) there is no difference between accommodating some corporate aims and full entrenchment in "Their camp";
>>
>> Just the opposite.  That seems to be Laura's view.  Obama's futile
>> attempts to enlist bipartisanship was naiveté at best, and the worst
>> form of negotiating a deal ever.  That said, he's not at all
>> entrenched in Their camp, as Laura’s “one leg in each” proposes.
>> Laura can't see the stark difference between Obama and the Red team
>> because he's not as pure politically as she would like.  She probably
>> voted for Nader in 2000.  She's bought into the "there's no difference
>> between the two" lie.
>>
>>> b) corporations will not back Obama, c) so his re-election contestable;
>>> d) therefore Obama is in "Their camp"; and e) it is myopic to think
>>> Obama will easily win in November.
>>
>> Republicans with corporate backing will far outspend the Republicans
>> in 2012.  That said, I think Obama will be reelected., but not because
>> (as Laura posits) he’s backed by Corporations.  The Republicans have
>> let the looneys take over their party, and most of the Country sees
>> how crazy they are.  They see the difference.
>>
>> David Morris
>