Hot News!
• PR v. 9x: Can Charter have it both ways?
• The Small Donor-Fallacy: Don’t believe the hype!
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 Saturday July 12, 10 am-12 pm Quarterly GET-TOGETHER BRUNCH for LOCAL PEACE AND JUSTICE GROUPS @ Peaslee Neighborhood Center (215 E 14th St - free parking lot next to center) - John Davis from Sojourners Cincinnati is the coordinator and the facilitator for this session Topic: “Poverty in Cincinnati”
1) Status of Poverty in Cincinnati – John Davis - Sojourners Cincinnati
|
July 12-17 NAACP Annual Convention - Power, Justice, Freedom, Vote
|
July, 19am - 12pm Immigration
|
Monday, May 12, 2008
cincysuz: Profile from the Peanut Gallery
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Regular readers of The Beacon know that we have a cast of characters who frequent the comments. Someone named “cincysuz” has a constant theme when she joins discussion here: accuse The Beacon of being a propaganda machine for the Republican Party. So we asked ourselves a simple question: what if we started quoting cincysuz back to herself? What would it look like if cincysuz argued with herself? We were given that opportunity when we combined the recent discussion of Marc Dann with an old post about Dennis Kucinich dropping out of the race.
In this comment, I posted the following:
If Obama wanted to be the real “people’s candidate” he would take the golden opportunity to attack the million ways the Republican’s have screwed up the country and spell out exactly how he would do things differently. I don’t see him differentiating himself at all. Americans DO want to hear that. Of course Republicans don’t and he wants so much to appeal to them, that he’s just going for the “America has great potential, we can do anything we set our mind to” patriotic, nationalistic, whip ‘em into an emotional frenzy message. He wants to create a bunch of Republicans for Obama, like the Democrats for Reagan bunch.
I copied the content from this post left by cincysuz on the older article. And she took the bait! Here is cincysuz arguing with herself:
Once he gets the nomination, he’ll have the opportunity to attack the Republicans. Right now he has to devote all of his energy to repelling the racist attacks that come from all fronts. I haven’t been following the Greens, Independents or Libertarians but wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve gotten their licks in too. But then the father of a two children that may very well face that scenario in this racist land isn’t concerned about “color.” Funny how white people always say color doesn’t matter but will find every flimsy excuse not to support a black man when the rubber meets the road. And it’s a laugh hearing you, who have treated all Republicans with kid gloves, extended every possible courtesy to your brethren, that someone else is weak on attacking Republicans. But I don’t think you and JJ and MEP in partnership with the rest of the Republicans will be successful this time in your efforts to install another Republican administration!
That’s when I responded with another tid-bit copied from cincysuz:
Obama and Clinton are one in the same. The only difference is that Obama names a Republican, Ronald Reagan, as his inspiration. Some choice.
You can see the original here.
After some prompting, she took the bait and argued with herself again:
Oh really? Well first why don’t you explain why you continue to bash the only viable non-Republican candidate for president? Sure, he’s not as progressive as I’d like, but the other choice is Clinton or the McCain/Nadar ticket. I think that like many white people, your motives are race based. You’re looking for an excuse not to support a black male presidential candidate and everything you say on this blog supports that. That would threaten the superiority of you and the other Beacon boys so you choose to support either the old white male that has decade after decade been rejected (you guys always love to say that Gore lost his own state when Nadar never takes anything) but like the ever ready bunny keeps on running, or the other old white male war mongering Republican. The choice would be clear to anyone BUT a hard core conservative. And I’m really eager to read YOUR response. But I don’t expect it.
I left one more piece dangling for her, but she didn’t bit a third time. Did she figure out our game? Who knows. But it sure was great having fun with cincysuz!
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
12 May 2008 at 10:14 am | #
Well done! We’ve all seen too many comment threads derailed by cincysuz’s inability (or unwillingness) to construct a logical argument. The only common denominator to her messages is an unrelenting attempt to “expose” the Beacon, as if the Dean and Justin possess some original sin which only she perceives and now must prove to all others, presumably to “save us from being duped” by the Dean/Jeffre “propaganda juggernaut.”
Given the range of opinion on the Beacon and its profile as a pleasant online local haven from a region legendary for idiot journalism, cincysuz has taken on a fool’s errand (and she certainly fills the job description). Justin is a politically consistent Chomsky/Nader rad who defends his positions and POV, sometimes endlessly, lest he be misunderstood; meanwhile, the Dean is a like a wildcat oil prospector who has been known to drill too often and too fast, but over time he has improved his aim and attack.
Meanwhile cincysuz and a couple other peanut gallery denizens, instead of starting blogs or submitting articles to the Beacon for publication, demonstrate their natural subservience by existing only as ongoing angry noisemakers in the comments section in their relentless attempt to...what? Trap the Dean and Justin engaging in some far-fetched conspiracy? ("They’re attacking Bill Sloat and Phil Heimlich because they’re being paid off by Nate Livingston’s auntie!") Or perhaps they want to drive the blog off the internet? Imagine that fevered logic: “Phew, thank goodness we no longer have to click on The Beacon’s URL and post comments so that others are not led astray.”
To cincysuz and you other pea-shooters, I offer this suggestion (and yes, yes, I know you will ignore it or insult the idea, but what the hell.): This town is deadly dry as it is. Please stop trying to plug up this pleasant oasis. To paraphrase a speech writer hired by the son of a tycoon fixer: Ask not what The Beacon can do for you; ask what you can do for The Beacon. Write some articles. Submit them. If they’re decent, The Dean will publish them.
12 May 2008 at 12:35 pm | #
I am in the middle of a similar “discussion” with an author here in Santa Fe. She last left the ball in my court with, “Go ahead and help get McCain elected” despite my efforts to explain why I was supporting Nader/ Paul/ Kucinich or anyone willing to use the English language (you know, using verbs, adverbs and nouns, etc) to discuss “a rose” as if it were, in fact, a rose.
This is my response to her, though I have received no reply as yet.
I would be very interested in CincySuz’s response.
At your behest, I picked up a copy of Obama’s book and read it.
I had thought that within it I would find what it was the filled you, and his other fervent supporters, with hope for change that might occur should this man be elected. After having read it, I am even less optimistic for it is no longer just “my sense of it”, I am now sure of his irrelevance
Is this the lesser of two evils?
Or, is this the candidate that will serve to stem and quiet the awakening of many Americans to the corporate agenda, to settle them down for the next four years to enable the corporate media to finalize complete ownership of ALL the media, to take measures to curb and quiet the internet that has, in the last 10 years served to awaken millions to this move toward Orwellian regimentation, this corporate saturation that minimizes (and in some cases, eliminates) cultural diversity in favor of a McDonalds and Wal-Mart sameness whose only function is to redirect heretofore locally or regionally traded green energy into the few hands of those running those corporations leaving the world with an exponentially expanding poverty class.
I had begun a response to your last, but came across this article, and, well, it says it allCorporate America Hearts Obama
By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted April 30, 2008.
Obama’s campaign message, filled with lofty promises of change and hope, is also filled with repeated reassurances to the corporate elite.
The corporate state is our shadow government. Candidates who aspire to higher office get corporate money if they promote corporate interests. They are shut out of the national debate—look at Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader—if they do not. Defy the corporate state and you get handed a ticket to oblivion. You become invisible. Work for it and you are showered with tens of millions of dollars and the possibility of political power.
Barack Obama’s campaign message, filled with lofty promises of change and hope, is also filled with repeated reassurances to the corporate elite. Pick up a copy of Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope.” The subtext is clear. It is a steady reminder to corporate America, a reminder bolstered by Obama’s voting record that corporations would have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency.
“Of course,” he writes, “there are those within the Democratic Party who tend toward similar zealotry. But those who do have never come close to possessing the power of a Rove or a DeLay, the power to take over the party, fill it with loyalists, and enshrine some of their more radical ideas into law. The prevalence of regional, ethnic, and economic differences within the party, the electoral map and the structure of the Senate, the need to raise money from economic elites to finance elections—all these things tend to prevent Democrats in office from straying too far from the center. In fact, I know very few elected Democrats who neatly fit the liberal caricature; the last I checked, John Kerry believes in maintaining the superiority of the U.S. military, Hillary Clinton believes in the virtues of capitalism, and just about every member of the Congressional Black Caucus believes Jesus Christ died for his or her sins.”
He praises the “recognizably progressive” Bill Clinton, whose disastrous welfare reform he lauds, for showing that “government spending and regulation could, if properly designed, serve as vital ingredients and not inhibitors to economic growth, and how markets and fiscal discipline could help promote social justice. He recognized that not only societal responsibility but personal responsibility was needed to combat poverty.” Obama excoriates “those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interest groups. But these efforts seem exhausted, a constant game of defense, bereft of energy and new ideas needed to address the changing circumstances of globalization or a stubbornly isolated inner city.”
“Our Constitution places the ownership of private property at the very heart of our system of liberty,” he writes. “Our religious traditions celebrate the value of hard work and express the conviction that a virtuous life will result in material reward. Rather than vilify the rich, we hold them up as role models, and our mythology is steeped in stories of men on the make—the immigrant who comes to this country with nothing and strikes it big, the young man who heads West in search of his fortune. As Ted Turner famously said, in America money is how we keep score.”
The corporations have gotten the message. The same Beltway lobbyists, corporate donors and public relations firms, the same weapons manufacturers, defense contractors, nuclear power companies and Wall Street interests that give Clinton and John McCain money, give Obama money. They happen, in fact, to give Obama more. And the corporate state, which is carrying out a coup d’état in slow motion, believes it will prosper in Obama’s hands. If not, he would not be a viable candidate. We have come full circle, back to the age of the robber barons and railroad magnates of the late 19th century who selected members of corrupt state assemblies to be their pliable senators and congressmen and sent them off to Washington to do their bidding.
There have been some important investigations into Obama’s links with major corporations, including Ken Silverstein’s November 2006 article “Barack Obama Inc: The Birth of a Washington Machine” in Harper’s magazine. Newsweek has also detailed many of Obama’s major corporate contributors. Obama’s Leadership PAC includes John Gorman of Texas-based Tejas Securities, a major supporter of Senate Democrats as well as the Bush presidential campaigns. It includes Winston & Strawn, the Chicago-based law and lobbying firm. It also includes the corporate law firms Kirkland & Ellis, and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fundraisers for Obama as well as donors. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Henry Crown and Co., an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense, are all funding the Illinois senator.
Individual contributors to Obama come from major lobbyist groups such as those of Jeffrey Peck (whose clients include MasterCard, the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) and Rich Tarplin (Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers). Exelon, a leading nuclear plant operator, based in Illinois, is a long-time donor to the Obama campaign. Exelon executives and employees have contributed at least $227,000 to Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fundraisers. Obama has also accepted more than $213,000 from individuals (and their spouses) who work for companies in the oil and gas industry, and two of Obama’s bundlers are senior oil company executives who have raised between $50,000 and $100,000. I could go on, but you get the point.
Obama, as you will see if you examine his voting record, has repeatedly rewarded those who reward him. As a senator he has promoted nuclear energy as “green.” He has been lauded by the nuclear power industry, which is determined to resume building nuclear power plants across the country. He has voted to continue to fund the Iraq war. He opposed Rep. John Murtha’s call for immediate withdrawal. He refused to join the 13 senators who voted against confirming Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state. He voted in July 2005 to reauthorize the Patriot Act. He did not support an amendment that was part of a bankruptcy bill that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. He did not support the single-payer health care bill HR676, sponsored by Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers. He supports the death penalty. He worked tirelessly in the Senate in 2005 to pass a class-action “reform” bill that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms, which make up Obama’s second-biggest single bloc of donors. The law, with the Orwellian title the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits. This has long been a cherished goal of large corporations as well as the Bush administration. It effectively denies redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporate challenges. It moves these cases into corporate-friendly federal courts dominated by Republican judges. Even Hillary Clinton voted against this naked effort to allow corporations to carry out flagrant discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations.
Obama likes to paint himself as an opponent of the war. He reminds voters of his one—and only one—speech opposing it. But he swiftly changed his mind. Obama told the Chicago Tribune on July 27, 2004, that “there’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” Obama added that he “now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation, a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.” Obama wants to leave an estimated 50,000 troops in Iraq to protect our superbases and the Green Zone, our imperial city, to fight terrorism, and to train Iraqi forces. He traveled to Connecticut to campaign on behalf of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a leading proponent of the war and an advocate of airstrikes against Iran, when Lieberman was challenged by the anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. And when Obama talks about the Palestinians he reads dutifully from the script handed to him by Lieberman and the Israel lobbying group AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Obama’s policy director is Karen Kornbluh, who as a senior aide to Robert Rubin, the head of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration, pushed through NAFTA and other free-trade policies that unleashed the assault on organized labor and devastated the country’s manufacturing sector. And Obama’s senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, who teaches economics at the University of Chicago, privately assured Canada’s consul general in Chicago in February that Obama’s NAFTA-bashing “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,” according to a leaked memo of the meeting. Most of Obama’s senior advisers, including Penny Pritzker, a member of one of America’s richest families and the current finance chair of the campaign, have a long history of oiling the government apparatus for corporate interests and personal enrichment. Pritzker was the chair of Superior Bank of Chicago. The bank collapsed in 2001 with over $1 billion in insured and uninsured deposits, and 1,406 people lost nearly all their savings. The bank owners, who fabricated profit reports, made much of their money promoting risky subprime home mortgages. Those around Obama are as wedded to corporate interests as those around Clinton and McCain.
Obama is an articulate, intelligent and attractive politician, but he is also a corporate figurehead. A vote for Obama is a vote for the corporate state. Under an Obama administration, the corporations would continue their ruthless drive to disempower the citizens, to protect an entrenched American oligarchy and to subvert what is left of our faltering democracy.
See more stories tagged with: corporate elite, mccain, clinton, barack obama, obama, lobbyists
Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, was the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. He spent seven years in the Middle East and reported frequently from Iran. His latest book is American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.
12 May 2008 at 05:16 pm | #
Wow. Have I got egg on my face! You’re like the Professor of Tricknology. First let me say how honored I am that you’ve chosen little old nobody me as the subject of a Beacon editorial. I hope the other cast of characters don’t feel slighted.
Dean, I can see you’ve spent a lot of time on this. Late night research, comparing posts, strategizing on how to “get me.” Like a little alley cat lurking around the corner waiting to pounce. And getting me to argue with myself? Brilliant. (Although to be fair, I have on numerous occasions pointed out your own inconsistencies from post to post).
But again, thanks. And you got me all right. I changed my mind. But I still stand by everything I’ve said. At the time that’s how I felt. Now, this is how I feel. My position has evolved, by necessity. I criticized Obama. He was absolutely not my candidate of choice. Kucinich was. But, in order to be a part of the ouster of the Republican party and end the coup d’etat of 2000, I’ve had to move forward, make adjustments and yes, concessions. That’s what grownups have to do for the greater good. Or they can pretend that there’s an alternative like McKinney or Nadar, make an empty, useless “statement” by supporting phantom candidates and become irrelevant to the process. I’m not willing to do that yet or again. I now support Obama as the best of the choices and I’m comfortable with that. I think he’ll listen and even if he doesn’t, at least he’s not McCain.
Wouldn’t your time have been better spent doing research, comparing posts and strategizing on how to once and for all dispel and put to rest my accusation that: The Beacon is a propaganda machine for the Republican Party. Maybe you could pull up some of the articles that you’ve posted in support of local or national democrats. Or better yet articles blasting Republicans. In the many thousands of words that you and the others have written you should have no problem picking out multiple posts that prove you’re not biased, not a friend of the Republicans and an enemy of the Democrats. Anything fair and balanced about any Democrat would do. I may very well be inconsistent. But there’s no ambiguity about my disdain for this Republican administration.
I wonder if you would allow a discussion on the Beacon’s partisanship. Just invite readers to give their perceptions of how or if the Beacon has been biased. That is sans the usual tactic of JJ “The Hammer” boring everyone off the thread with his cut and paste anti-Democrat tirades.
Thanks again!
12 May 2008 at 08:23 pm | #
cincysoozkooz of course you’re easily dismissed. You add nothing more than I. Where are your articles? And you demonstrate your natural subserviance by volunteering as an unsolicited sychophant. A role that fits YOU nicely. What have you added? You’re simply another anonymous poster with no opinions happy to just feel like part of of the pack. Take heart. Those who sit and wait also serve. And I’m not trying to undermine or obliterate the Beacon. It’s supposed to be the place where divergent views collide--that is until they do. Then watch out. Enough of you.
Ed Varney - This argument isn’t really about Obama. It’s about my objection to the Beacon’s demonization of all Democrats because they’re Democrats, their relentless campaign to ruin just about every local Democrat that runs for or holds office, (see the latest gossip mongering about Tyrone Yates) their hands-off policy as far as Republicans, even making excuses for the COAST group who lead the mob against gay rights here locally. And then they continue to claim that they’re progressives. None of it adds up. They disagree and say I’m a liar, psychotic, anonymous troll, etc. It’s a stalemate. That’s the gist.
Your post is much different than the usual Beacon rim job and worth a serious read and re-read. Full of interesting information. All factual, informed, intelligent, scary. Since you don’t seem to be an undercover Republican whose intention is to simply grab votes for that party, I’ll ask you, what’s the answer? You know Nadar can’t win. You know he’ll garner even fewer votes than last election. You know that supporting him is just a statement. A statement soon forgotten just like the last two elections. Do we just give it up to McCain?
13 May 2008 at 07:20 am | #
The boys at the Beacon don’t like it when they get, what they perceive as too much criticism, from posters. As the recipient of their attention for pointing out their occasional media hypocrisy, their conjuring of statistical support for illogical reasoning, 3cdc witch hunts, misrepresentatin of fact, racial bias to the extreme, ect.; I can tell you, all they have is words. As one who is committed to, and heavily involved in my community politics, I have been attacked by the uninvolved and uninformed, from time to time, and weathered the storm just fine.
Suz, while I rarely agree with you, I support your right to represent your opinion. People will either agree with you or not; and the Beacon should not try to limit the discussion through the tactics employed here.
13 May 2008 at 11:51 am | #
Aren’t you so clever. You outwitted someone on a blog! You get a gold star, Jason.
As the saying goes, arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.
13 May 2008 at 04:06 pm | #
Suz,
Loyalty to party over country is treason. Those that have sworn an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states and then act counter to or in violation thereof are not fit for office and should be hanged. This applies from the bottom to the top. From the dog catcher to the current dim bulb in the oval office.
The beacon has done a commendable job of exposing injustice and derailing political whores of both stripes. Their work exposing tax abuse by campaign donors cannot be found in any other outlet that I know of. Working on issues, in coalition, where they find common ground is what they do best. If the dems had any ideas I’m sure the common ground exists and progress could be made. The problem with the two party system is it keeps us distracted from our primary purpose of creating a nation based on principles of liberty, equality, and justice under the law. The current criminal justice system is aptly named. It is run by criminals and denies any reference to constitutional law. If the constitution is the highest law in the land how can it be denied?
Third party candidates change the conversation and force the tougher issues into the forefront of public discussion. Ron Paul is the only remaining candidate in the race that even addresses constitutional government and the limits our founding fathers placed on it. To vote for anybody because they aren’t someone you dislike is as absurd as trying to feel more secure by attacking another. Our nation is a republic, not a democracy as so many believe and rights are God given and protected under our constitution, not granted by the government. Study the founding documents and demand those that swear an oath do not perjure it.
13 May 2008 at 07:55 pm | #
Hey! Thanks for the peanut!
13 May 2008 at 09:00 pm | #
JFD - It especially gets their testosterone up if a woman disagrees. And women never do on here. Among the many, many posters that disagree, I am the sole dissenting female voice. White Male, Somebody Jones, and many other presumed male posters constantly sling insults, but you don’t see them being profiled. It’s a sexist thing. They like women to stay in their place.
Anon-- Third party candidates? You’ve got Ron Paul who says this: “the true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.” If there was ever a dream candidate for corporate America, it’s Paul. Then there’s Nadar. A three or maybe four time loser that even with massive name recognition still losing rather than gaining popularity through the decades so he has a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected dogcatcher. Then there’s militia supporter Bob Barr a, guess what? Libertarian. Talk sense, man.
14 May 2008 at 05:54 am | #
from cincysuz.......
White Male, Somebody Jones, and many other presumed male posters constantly sling insults, but you don’t see them being profiled.
Cincysuz has called me and others numerous names such as idiot, dope, ignorant, etc., but when I review my prior posts, I do not find one since insult directed toward cuncysuz.
Of course, cincysuz thinks it is an insult just to disagree with her.
I can imagine cincysuz being a college professor and NOT allowing open discussion in her class. I can imagine cincysuz giving a student an F for well written, researched answer or assignment that disagrees with her point of view.
For example, if I, as a student, argued on behalf of “necessary torture”, she probably would call campus security and have me removed from the class.
Maybe I missed something here. So, please, cincysuz, can you show me just one insult I have hurled at you or anyone?
QUESTION FOR CINCYZSUZ: You stated that you originally supported Dennis Kucinich for ‘08. Then, you must agree on his position on slavery reparations. Really? Care to explain how we can accomplish this?
14 May 2008 at 09:10 am | #
Wow...this seems like a terrible idea.
Someone disagrees with me...i’m going to put a spotlight on them and try to run them off.
I guess this is more of a “blog” than a source for “independent media”, huh? That’s too bad.
14 May 2008 at 09:54 am | #
You gotta love the Beacon. Like all good conspiratorially-minded activists they have a long memory. Never forget: Dissent will not be tolerated, and loyal readers are subject to attack!
Further evidence why true fascism always comes from the Left.
(And don’t doubt for a second that they pore over every IP address to identify their enemies.)
14 May 2008 at 02:58 pm | #
cincysuz tries to misrepresent things we say and accuses us of being inconsistent just about everyday. Is it really an attack to point out that she has been inconsistent? She has tried to demonize us for being critical of her precious corporate Democrats, but it wasn’t very long ago that she was very critical of them too. And yes it did surprise when she wrote those things, but then she went back to towing the line for her corporate party. She says I’m a evil Republican because I support Nader, but she voted for him in 2000.
It’s not often that I agree with White Male, but I do think that cincysuz takes someone disagreeing with her or being critical of her corporate Democrats as a personal insult. She claims Nader isn’t a real candidate, but supports Kucinich. I like them both, but they are both too progressive to get fair coverage in the corporate media.
xxxyyxxx, you obviously have no idea what fascism is. Please give us your definition of “fascism” and the “left”. Thanks!
14 May 2008 at 05:41 pm | #
Ted Varney - What’s your solution?
NtotheC and xxxyyxx. They’re very touchy about the subjects I broach. I’m just responding to their articles with my own views, which by the lack of interest in most of the articles, fewer and fewer are bothering. When it gets especially hot, they just start dumping my posts so it looks like I’ve retreated. There are a couple of really mean spirited threads going on right now. One or more of that cast of characters is much more deserved of a “peanut gallery” profile than me. Choose your words carefully. You may be next.
White Male quit fantasizing that I’m your stern college professor! And you can bet your ass that your essay on “necessary torture” would get you a well-deserved F. I might even determine that you’re a threat, possibly a “terrorist.” I’d have to call campus security and have you removed. Now I’ve never known one, but it’s a commonly held belief that terrorists condone torture. Necessary torture? That’s un-American and certainly not something a patriot could condone.
Maybe you didn’t insult me. But I’m insulted by most of your views. I’m not going to start searching around wasting an evening pouring through everybody’s words. I’ll concede that you haven’t insulted me. I just grabbed a name. Substitute some other.
And yes indeedy I support reparations 100%. There are many different viewpoints on how this should be accomplished, whether cash, scholarships, grants, business or housing opportunities. The details would have to be worked out. Switch the word reparations for subsidies. It hasn’t been difficult to figure out how to pour billions of unearned dollars into fat cat corporations. I’m sure that learned men and women can certainly fashion a fair and equitable plan to pay what’s long overdue to those that made this country the richest on earth.
14 May 2008 at 07:36 pm | #
I never misrepresent your words. You post them. You write them. I comment. I haven’t demonized you for criticizing Democrats. I don’t fault Republicans for attacking Democrats. Peter Bronson, Willie Cunningham, Chris Finney, Tom Brinkman, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. don’t give me heartburn (except for Brinkman’s gay bashing which has never been an issue at the Beacon). That’s their job.
And criticizing Democrats is the primary theme, focus and purpose of this blog. Admit that instead of claiming to be progressives. If you read real progressive publications like Mother Jones, Truthout, etc. there’s plenty of criticism of Democrats but the primary focus is where it should be: Republicans, George Bush, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, Cheney. The Beacon outswiftboats the swiftboaters when it comes to their mission to ruin Democrats. Do a Fairness and Accuracy in Media type analysis on yourselves and see how your biases play out. It is what it is.
JJ you agree with White Male much more than you’d like to admit. Is it that you’ve come together only to pile on the common enemy? Me. Or a deeper philosophical and political connection? You just had another moment over on the Dann thread. I think it’s the latter.
14 May 2008 at 08:46 pm | #
Oh, the ‘definition’ ploy.
MM. Gee, never seen that around here before (cough, cough). But why not. Here goes. Here’s how you define ‘Left’, Justin: Make a list of the top ten problems that you think ‘average people’ have to deal with in their lives, whether they are in Cincinnati or anywhere else in the world. Then make a list of the best solutions that you think would alleviate those problems. If more than five of those solutions involve using taxation of other people and the use of a central government to make them work, then you are on the Left. Sorry. (But why aren’t you proud?)
Beacon discussion usually consists of center-Democrats, left-Democrats, Socialists, Marxists, faux Libertarians (on social behavior issues, always) and other varieties of radicals arguing amongst themselves about who is the big mean person on the Right. Which usually only means Right of Them. Some of the cincysuz “contradictions” illustrate that nicely, when you do the forensics.
Fascism is the ultimate manifestation of the belief that people really don’t know what right for them, so it becomes necessary to force it on them, and everyone else. It’s the final removal of personal liberty in the name of fairness.
14 May 2008 at 09:14 pm | #
You are very correct in that I am not just an undercover Republican. I am overtly a republican (small “r” intended), and no way in hell would I attempt to “grab votes” for ththis current batch of Republicans.
There are no longer any “parties” from which to choose, to vote for as evidence of one’s political beliefs. We have only diversions within a coherent agenda, supported and, in fact, in my mind at least, scripted by the mainstream media.
You seem to be asking, fairly enough, why we cant see the logic of supporting the Democratic candidate, for, in your mind, and apparently in that of many others, he is far superior to the choice on the Republican side, and display the feeling that any criticism of the Democratic side is evidence of pandering for the Republicans. Your passion is clear and admirable. But, We the People must stop allowing them to manipulate those passions to their benefit or to facilitate their ends.
When I first heard Obama speak over a year ago, I too, became excited. I saw in him the potential for more options and a man who might be willing to discuss core issues as he was alluding to initially. But, over the ensuing 6 months I witnessed his rhetoric sculpted down to fit within a party line, as if the intent of the script there was to grab the attention of those asking, and those beginning to ask, the question, “WTF is going on”, and pull them back into what is, in effect, a two-party irrelevancy.
Locking us in this “two-party system” is how “they” do it.
Does criticism of certain Democrats necessarily mean that this criticism is designed to convert a Democrat vote to a Republican vote? Hardly. I see the evil nature and immoral agenda of the Republican Party, globally, nationally and locally, for the most part, as a given, I guess, and see those criticisms of the Democrats rather as a clear attempt to stimulate me to explore “other” options, or, to think, if you will.
Until we deal with the macro issues of American Imperialism and Militarism scripted and conducted via Central Bank (Federal Reserve) hegemony, necessitating an examination of Corporate Personhood and other obfuscations, eliminations and denials of the Constitution, the rule of law and outright contradictions to and ridicules of common sense, none of the issues currently being allowed (health care, immigration, et al) to be discussed by the mainstream media, can ever be dealt with effectively (since decisions relative to these issues are decided by the corporations via Congress, rather than We the People via Congress) and, therefore, will only continue to serve as diversions.
If, in fact, we are allowed an election in November of 2008 and we are not subjected to Executive Order 51 as the result of some new “Catalyzing and Catastrophic Event”, a new “911”, and should we be able to provide oversight of the elections sufficiently to be able to say that the results were real, and Barack were to become the new President, what, without a 2/3 majority in Congress, do you believe that he would be able to accomplish?
My personal fantasy, if Barack were elected, is that in his Inaugural Address, he would lay out for the American People, in honest and no BS terms, and as a complete and utter surprise to both parties and the media, the core issues, as I have laid out above, to the American people. To continue this fantasy, Barack would then, even using some of the bogus and illegal “powers of the Presidency” co-opted by McBush, if need be, reverse all of the FCC rulings of late (20 Years), force the Corporations to divest themselves of their monopoly of the media ( Oh, I forgot, there are already laws against such monopolies and, oh yes, the airwaves DO belong to The People, but, then, this is my fantasy so I can continue) and publically calls for the revelation of just who it is who own and operate the Federal Reserve. My fantasy is that he would begin, since he would be President and could not be ignored, as are Nader and Paul, who ARE discussing these issues, discussions between the American People such as “Why, if the Congress has the power to print fiat currency, are we having to pay interest to a bank when we print fiat currency?”, or “How did we get to a state where our corporate directed foreign policy now has us defined by most of the rest of the world as the new Nazis?”
But, this is just a fantasy, for were he to begin discussions as I presented above, his life would be not be worth (as the Kennedy brothers were to find out), in the old proverbial, a plug nickel. I would be willing to bet, Suz, that that would also be your initial, knee-jerk response to my fantasy, and that, in itself, would be ‘nuff said.
There are no panaceas, no quick fixes.
Returning government to the People within the framework of the Constitution is the solution (Legislative). Eliminating corporate influence of that government is the solution (Executive). Eliminating corporate personhood is the solution (Judicial).
How we work toward these solutions is our dilemma.
Education and awareness and refusing to be sidetracked by irrelevancies is our avenue.
Communication, one on one, the internet, while we still have it, and getting out on the streets and voting your conscience and for principled Statesmen (not politicians) is our vehicle.
14 May 2008 at 09:47 pm | #
’
“Justin Jeffre says: 14 May 2008 at 02:58 pm | # cincysuz tries to misrepresent things we say and accuses us of being inconsistent just about everyday. Is it really an attack to point out that she has been inconsistent? She has tried to demonize us for being critical of her precious corporate Democrats, but it wasn’t very long ago that she was very critical of them too.”
Is loyality to the anti-corporate candidate any different ?
Nader has been there, done that and still doesn’t have a chance in **** of being elected. He certainly was wRong on the Corvair while remaining silent on the rice-burners and now they finance our debt.
Blind leading the Blind ?
Unfortuately, it is the best of two evils. Kinda like heaven or **** ? Just ask Dann what happenes when anyone thinks with the wRong head.
The choice as history has demonstrated:
**** job or NO job !
.
15 May 2008 at 05:26 am | #
Ted Varney - thought so. Chatting on the internet and wasting your vote on clever politicians that have convinced a scant few that they’re principled Statesmen instead of media seeking megalomaniacs. Now that’s going to change the world.
15 May 2008 at 07:27 am | #
From Cincyzuz........
And yes indeedy I support reparations 100%. There are many different viewpoints on how this should be accomplished, whether cash, scholarships, grants, business or housing opportunities. The details would have to be worked out. Switch the word reparations for subsidies. It hasn’t been difficult to figure out how to pour billions of unearned dollars into fat cat corporations. I’m sure that learned men and women can certainly fashion a fair and equitable plan to pay what’s long overdue to those that made this country the richest on earth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for the families of the Union soldiers who lost their lives in the Civil War, what to you wish?????????
And for those of us who can provide documenation that our ansestors arrived on shore in the late 1860s, are we guilty of anything?
15 May 2008 at 09:39 am | #
I actually have a big crush on cincysuz, but I have no idea how to contact her.
Cincysuz, are you available?
(This isn’t another one of the Dean’s tricks)
15 May 2008 at 09:51 am | #
Justin,
I would hope that you would be able to take criticism better than this. You and the Dean should not be stooping to this level to point out inconsistencies in a poster’s statements. This is entirely bush league.
Ted,
I like your sentiments. I can only hope that a President Obama would begin to move in that direction. If he were to accomplish any one of those objectives i would consider him a success. I’ve said many times that if anyone wants to grow a party it needs to happen at the lower levels and build from there. Justin wants to build the Green Party. Okay, run good, viable candidates for local positions. Get those people into office to build a profile and a base. Once that occurs you can start running in larger elections. Nadar isn’t the answer. I don’t blame Nadar for the last two elections, i don’t believe a vote for Nadar was a vote for Bush. However, i do think that Nadar is a joke.
15 May 2008 at 11:05 am | #
shame shame shame - when you try to win arguments through intimidation - you’ve already lost Dean
15 May 2008 at 04:51 pm | #
Huh?
15 May 2008 at 06:32 pm | #
Secret Admirer - Thanks for the love, I think, but no I’m not “available,” in the sense that you mean. And even if I was, establishing friendships via the Beacon would not be wise.
But the good news for today is that California overturned the ban against same sex marriage! Maybe not good news for the Beacon though.
Now this thread is starting to drift off track. Please don’t hijack the thread. Stay focused on me. Respect the headline. Is there any other position of mine that we could banter about? We’ve covered alot but I’m sure there’s more. I believe hunters are serial killers. What about that? Wacky huh? Living wills are an invention of the insurance industry. If you’re smart, you’ll linger. Gregory LaCava and John Waters films are the only ones worth watching. Lined-out hymnody dance clubs are on the horizon. Gee, I see why all this power has gone to the Dean and JJ’s heads. The attention is intoxicating. Guess it backfired on you Dean.
16 May 2008 at 07:04 am | #
cincysuz says:
15 May 2008 at 06:32 pm | #
Is there any other position of mine that we could banter about?
CINCYSUZ, I’m sure that you have friends or relatives who are Republican and conservative. How do you interact with them? If you are at a Christmas gathering having dinner and the subject of politics is raised, do you call them stupid, idiot, dope, etc? Or do you listen and respect their views?
We had a very dear family friend who passed away about five years ago. She was an accomplished woman who embraced each and every liberal cause that came along over the past 50 years.
We locked heads on more than one occasion, but it was done in a respectful manner. We saw her maybe once or twice a year. I can recall my wife saying as we were getting ready to leave “Now, please don’t get into it with Myrtle”.
She was loved by all. I have many good friends and relatives who are liberal Democrats, but we get along fine. We poke fun at each other. One poor fellow, an ex Marine, for some unknown reason is very liberal and buys into all of the environmental nonsense that comes down the pike. He gets it from almost all of his friends as well as his family and his wife’s family who are all Republican. But he is a decent guy and a great father.
So my question to cincysuz is how do your conservative relatives and friends regard you. Are you looked upon as mean spirited vicious in your political views.
Oh, I have a niece who is in her early 30s, and she is as mean as a snake when it comes to politiics and feminist issues. Once I asked her how she got “that way”, and she went nuts becuse I used the term “that way”.
16 May 2008 at 08:27 am | #
cincysuz says:
13 May 2008 at 09:00 pm | #
JFD - It especially gets their testosterone up if a woman disagrees. And women never do on here. Among the many, many posters that disagree, I am the sole dissenting female voice.
Ahem.
16 May 2008 at 10:47 am | #
from cincysuz........
White Male quit fantasizing that I’m your stern college professor! And you can bet your ass that your essay on “necessary torture” would get you a well-deserved F. I might even determine that you’re a threat, possibly a “terrorist.” I’d have to call campus security and have you removed. Now I’ve never known one, but it’s a commonly held belief that terrorists condone torture. Necessary torture? That’s un-American and certainly not something a patriot could condone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you would give some an F if they wrote on the reasons against same sex marriage even if their work was well researched and presented.
Would the same apply to:
A well researched and presented essay presenting the case against the death tax;
A well researchedand presented essay presenting the case for the death penalty;
A well researched and presented essay presenting the case of use of animals in medical research.
But then again, if a student presented an average essay on the advanatages and necessity of the estate tax. You would give that kid an A - - - but the kid who worte against the death tax would get the F. Right?
I hope you are not a college professor.
16 May 2008 at 05:48 pm | #
TDG - My apologies! You are another regular female voice but probably agree with the Dean and JJ more often than I. But it’s true I’m not the ONLY dissenting female voice. Some of the anons may be female, but wisely don’t admit it. Democrats, women and gays are at most tolerated on the Beacon, and actually scorned by a certain “multi-platinum recording artist media activist.” You’re smart. What’s your take?
White Male: F, F, F, F & C & F. And you’re expelled. Don’t talk to me anymore.
17 May 2008 at 08:13 am | #
From cincysuz....Don’t talk to me anymore.
Please, one more queston suz, please.
How would you react if your man Obama called you sweetie?
How would your react if your man Obama called you hon or honey?
How would you react if your man Obama called you toots?
or, sugarcakes, honeybuns, minion, doll, sweetheart, precious,babe, dear, blue eyes, blondie, red, honey pie, etc. etc.
I’ll bet you would give Obama a pass.
But, but, but.........let John McCain do it and all hell would break loose.
17 May 2008 at 10:51 am | #
Well, I was at the grocery store and a checker half my age called me honey. That happens quite often with sales and service people. I’m not crazy about it. Way too familiar. People form habits. It’s a term of endearment and he admitted he has to catch that and it’s not appropriate.
Now if McCain called me a cunt, like he called his wife within earshot of three witnesses, that would make me really mad and I’d have to slap him square in his lopsided face and take the consequences. Maybe that’s a term of endearment that he uses or just a slip because he calls all women cunts. No, I wouldn’t like it at all. It’s true that adulterous McCain, known in Washington as “The Zipper” for his inappropriate behavior toward aides and lower level workers unfortunate enough have to deal with him, would have been more accurate to have used one of the following term for his wife: junkie, hophead, dopefiend, addict. I’m glad you brought this up because filthy mouthed, hot head McCain has been caught so many times using degrading language that it makes Obama’s slip actually look charming.
17 May 2008 at 11:04 am | #
Here’s some evidence. A real, progressive, non-Democrat-bashing blog would be all over David Crowley’s Environmental Justice Initiative. It would be a great conversation. Also his anti-Iraq war work should be lauded here. Also Cranley’s Innocence Project work is cause for pride. There’s lots of other stuff that fits into the progressive agenda category that The Beacon ignores because Democrats are involved. So what do they print? Unfounded accusations slandering Tyrone Yates and a puff piece on DeWine. Can they keep denying that they’re Republican-lite?
17 May 2008 at 11:59 pm | #
Dean’s a TOOL that Cincy Sue RULES, hence a WHOLE thread/commentary devoted to HER. Like it or not---she gets the ol’ Deansters GOAT and pleasantly so.
18 May 2008 at 01:37 pm | #
Cincy Sue,
I don’t always agree with what you write but don’t let Jason or JJ run you off with this petty, bitchy little post. You seem to be asking the right questions and making the right statements to rile them up so much.
18 May 2008 at 02:56 pm | #
White Male - How would your wife, daughter, sister react if McCain called her a cunt? Personally, I prefer Sweetie. I’m waiting for your comment since you brought this up, not me.
18 May 2008 at 10:33 pm | #
An article on McCain! (If I knew how to create one of those little animated yellow faces, I’d put one here. It would have an astounded look). And what a red letter day it is. I take full credit for pushing, prodding, taking shitloads of abuse and being the cyber sacrificial lamb that finally shamed The Beacon into posting something of a political nature that’s not anti-Democrat. And choosing progressive media film maker and activist Robert Greenwald’s article is a good start. No, it’s not an original piece by the Dean slamming corporate Republicans but it’s something.
19 May 2008 at 02:43 pm | #
NtotheC, cincysuz has been calling us Republicans and demonizing us for being critical of the Democratic Party’s candidates. She has continued to call us inconsistent. This is coming from someone that has been inconsistent and criticized those same candidates. This isn’t ancient history, her comments are recent.
I don’t have a problem with her changing her mind or disagreeing with us, but there’s no reason to demonize us. I don’t think it’s stooping to point out that an anonymous commenter that disingenuously accuses us of being “Republicans” that are “inconsistent” has very recently supported our position. Her comments have become amusing and she should be able to take her own comments if she’s going to dish them out. Lighten up and have a little sense of humor.
19 May 2008 at 05:24 pm | #
More nonsense from cincysuz. Please provide some proof of me scorning women or gays. You can’t because you made it up.
I’m only critical of the Democrats because they support the war, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, the failed Drug War, regressive jail taxes and prison expansions, gay marriage bans, corporate welfare and corporate personhood etc.
19 May 2008 at 05:57 pm | #
xxxyyxxx, asking for a definition is no ploy. It is just a request for clarification. These terms mean different things to different people.
For instance, Barry Goldwater was called Mr. Conservative but he would be considered very liberal today. He didn’t care about gay marriage and he said the religious right scared the hell out of him and he didn’t support the Drug War etc.
These are in no particular order:
1. Ending the war and imperial foreign policy would reduce taxes.
2. Ending the costly and failed Drug War would save money and would reduce our taxes.
3. Ending corporate welfare would reduce taxes.
4. Making polluters pay for disposal of their waste instead of shifting the burden to the taxpayer would reduce taxes.
5. Single-payer health care would actually be cheaper, more efficient and would reduce our tax burden. (We pay more and get less than every other industrialized nation under the current pay or die system.) I’m sure you’ll disagree but you are wrong.
6. Repeal NAFTA and other anti-labor legislation wouldn’t add to the tax burden.
7. Repeal the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights costs nothing and would free up jail space.
8. Election reform-like free airtime for all candidates (that are on the ballot) wouldn’t cost anything because the use our public airwaves for free and don’t pay rent for them.
9. Free education for all Americans (including higher education). OK maybe makes tax burden go up, but so what it’s a great idea that makes our country stronger.
10. Investment in mass transit and sustainable technology. Currently we subsidize the oil, coal, nuclear and the auto industries. Simply shifting our current investments to cleaner technology would go a long way to make our nation and planet more secure.
I don’t know how I would rank on your scale. Maybe you and cincysuz can argue about whether or not I’m liberal or conservative. I personally think labels can be a distraction and it’s better to talk issues.
Oh, and cincysuz. I’ve pointed out Greenwald’s work before if you were paying attention.
19 May 2008 at 07:33 pm | #
xxxyyxxx, fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. Mussilini said it should more approriately be called corporatism.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
20 May 2008 at 01:03 pm | #
Justin,
For someone that claims to have such high ideals and to be better than most everyone on here (Mr. Multi-Platinum Recording Artist/Millionaire) and in the city itself and within it’s political groups, i do hold you to a higher standard.
You claim to be for better journalism. To be an escape from the commercialism that has taken over the Enquirer and other MSM...well, i guess even you guys aren’t above yellow journalism.
pathetic.
20 May 2008 at 01:55 pm | #
New to the City, I haven’t claimed to be better than anyone (Mr. Self Righteous Anon). I didn’t write this and the Dean has said many times he considers himself to be a media activists, not a professional journalists. I do think it was amusing to watch.
I see nothing wrong with pointing out that cincysuz has flip flopped and used to share the same views that she now tries to demonize us for. Cincysuz is an anonymous commenter that tries to imply that I’m racist, anti-gay and anti-women simply because I’m critical of the political party she now supports.
The Dean simply used the same words that she’s used in the past against her. We work for free to bring you news and thought provoking conversations. We can have a little fun once in a while I think. cinysuz is tough and besides, nobody knows who she really is anyway. No harm done and your misguided outrage is pathetic.
The funny thing is that I think cincysuz and I agree on almost all the issues (except the jail tax). We just think different roads should be traveled to get there.
20 May 2008 at 04:14 pm | #
I don’t mind being attacked. It’s all for truth, justice and the greater good.
20 May 2008 at 05:15 pm | #
Do you really feel like you’ve been attacked because the Dean used the same words you’ve used?
I think an “attack” would be to call you a racist, anti-gay, anti-women Republican when you are clearly not.
20 May 2008 at 09:46 pm | #
That’s not an attack. It’s how I see it. My opinion. I’ve given dozens of examples.
Homophobe: Refusing to condemn or at least distance yourselves from the leading top dog, gay bashing, tri-state Republican homophobe: Tom Brinkman. That’s huge. It’s not just a personal view of his, which is bad enough. He actually proposes legislation and works hard at discrimination against gays going as far as Miami U to spread his hatred and attack the meager gains that have been made. That’s important to me and to anyone else that supports gay rights. He’s unfit for office, among the worst politicians in the country and The Beacon has just the forum to actively work to remove him from local politics and make life easier and more safe for the local gay community. (A side benefit would be one less opponent of a woman’s right to choose and foe of public schools). Do more than lip service. Instead you’ve promoted him, made him more visible, and given him credibility, claiming that his tireless work to ruin the lives of local gays isn’t relevant. Or not relevant enough for the Beacon to take it on. It can be interpreted no other way. Categories = anti-gay & pro-Republican
The second most recent example is the Livingston article and accusations against local Democrat Tyrone Yates. A triple whammy actually. Gay bashing, Democrat bashing and linking an article that used Livingston’s favorite term for women: bitch. There’s more evidence and I’ve pointed it out as it’s arisen. You know that.
Categories: anti-gay, anti-Democrat & anti-woman
Sexist: I’m treated more harshly because I’m female. There are plenty of name-calling, insulting male posters that you don’t bother with. Abusive threads are going on right now. The word bitch has been allowed numerous times though the n-word and calling somebody boy (and I agree that these should be condemned as well)slides by.
Category: anti-woman
Republican: Again. It’s obvious. Your mission is to obliterate every Democrat you can. It can’t be because you think you’re going to swell the ranks of the Green, Libertarian or Independent ranks. It’s a specific, directed intent. Your views benefit the Republicans (you think) so if it walks like a duck...For specific evidence see: everything you post.
Category: anti-Democrat
I won’t get into the subcategories of elitism and classism now.
You claimed that this site leans toward Democrat posters. Ridiculous. I challenge you to send out a call and ask Democrats if they feel like the place where divergent views collide allows them a forum to discuss or even promote their democratic views. This shouldn’t have been cincysuz: profile from the peanut gallery. It should be: Democrat: We’ll hound you off here so don’t bother. No one would dare defend Obama on here. Or Portune. Or Pepper. Claiming to focus on local politics, anything on our mayor, Mallory is suspiciously absent. None of your posters even claim to be a Democrat but me. Democrats have gone elsewhere. There’s no place on the Beacon.
These are my opinions and I stick by them. I’m not vague in my responses. I give specific examples. Instead of dismissing me and replying with the same canned anti-Democrat rant about NAFTA why not take a few minutes to actually ponder and ask yourselves if what I say has any validity. If maybe you’ve taken a wrong turn someplace and need to get a tuneup.
21 May 2008 at 09:37 am | #
Justin,
What could i possibly gain from letting you know who i am? So you could seek me out and demonize me? inform my employer of any political views i may hold? I don’t think of myself as important enough for all that, but then again...i wouldn’t think that you guys would go and post stories singling out certain individuals.
So, yeah, i’ll stay anon. And i’ll try to treat everyone else on here with respect, and i hope that you and the Dean (and any other contributor) will as well.
21 May 2008 at 12:17 pm | #
cincysuz, I have said over and over that I don’t support Tom Brinkman and I wouldn’t vote for him, but that doesn’t stop you from believing the delusions that you choose to believe. On my website, my platform talks about human rights for all as the first thing listed. Just because Brinkman and many other people from across the political spectrum agreed that the jail tax was bad doesn’t mean we agree on everything.
I didn’t write the article about Tyrone Yates. So what’s your point? There is no evidence that I’m anti-gay or anti-woman. I proudly admit I’m anti-Democrat.
You aren’t treated more harshly because you’re a woman. You’re treated harshly because you make stuff up and fill our blog with crazy BS rants. You’re the only person that reads our blog that thinks we are undercover Republicans.
I’m not out to obliterate anyone.(So dramatic!) My views do not benefit Republicans. I’m against the bipartisan war, Patriot Act, NAFTA, Drug War etc. These are bipartisan polices. What you say about me has no validity, but by all means keep repeating yourself over and over.
21 May 2008 at 01:23 pm | #
NtotheC, I don’t care who you are and I never asked. I haven’t demonized you, I don’t really know what your political views are and have no idea why you think I would want to tell your employer what they are if I did know you. You seem to be pretty paranoid my friend.
If people can write whatever they want about us, why can’t we write about them? The Dean didn’t make anything up about cincysuz.
I really don’t see why you’re so bent out of shape. Seriously, lighten up. How is using the same argument somebody else used disrespectful? I happen to think Cincysuz was right back then.
21 May 2008 at 08:16 pm | #
We go in circles. I supported Kucinich. Now he’s gone. He’s not an option. So I regrouped. I considered my next best choice. And yes of course I changed my mind. As has most everyone else that started out supporting any one of the other guys at the gate such as Richardson, Edwards, etc. You haven’t caught me at anything. I readily admit that I was pro-Kucinich. I still admire him immensely. Are you in any way familiar with primaries? Was everyone that supported someone in the original group of about 20 expected to just drop out of the process because their candidate didn’t make it? It’s a process of elimination. Are you ragging on your friends that didn’t stick with Huckabee or Romney? Go ahead and work for another Republican administration. That’s your right.
At least you finally admitted you’re anti-Democrat. How many words, how many posts, how many months, how much energy has been expended trying to pull an honest admission out of you? Not anti-Republican. Not pro-Green. Anti-Democrat. Say it again. ANTI-DEMOCRAT. And not just anti-democrat, PROUDLY ANTI-DEMOCRAT. All you naysayers that have claimed that The Beacon is non-biased and non-partisan, that I’ve imagined and made things up, that Democratic politicians and candidates locally and on a national level aren’t treated differently on The Beacon, and that I’m just imagining that The Beacon is pro-Republican, read my lips and Justin’s words and then kiss my ass. HE’S PROUDLY ANTI-DEMOCRAT. That’s all I wanted. The truth.
And on the 10th day she rested.
21 May 2008 at 08:46 pm | #
cinysuz, I’m anti-Republican too. There’s no difference. I’m an independent that doesn’t vote for pro-war corporate candidates like you do. Give it a rest Republicrat!
22 May 2008 at 06:18 am | #
cincysuz says:
18 May 2008 at 02:56 pm | # White Male - How would your wife, daughter, sister react if McCain called her a cunt? Personally, I prefer Sweetie. I’m waiting for your comment since you brought this up, not me.
------------------------------------------
Throw in a couple of granddaughters suz. How would I react? Of course, I and they would be highly offended.
The reason I raised the issue is, as you know, Obama called news reporter Peggy Agar “sweetie”. This was the second time he has done this. So, what is the big deal?
Yes, Presidental Candidate McCain has a temper and a short fuse. You say that he called his wife a tcun (just can’t spell or use that word that may offende women posters). Just as Obama or Hillary is not your first choice, McCain is not mine. But I have to go with what I have. I trust a President McCain to continue a steady flow of reasonlably conservative federal judges and possibly two decent United States Supreme Court Justices in his eight years as President.
I am not going to go into a game of volleyball by bringing up incidents where Democrats have made vulgar remarks.
McCain is aware of his “issues” and has for years been dealing with them. He, like most politicians is no saint.
22 May 2008 at 08:03 am | #
51 posts.
Is this record for one subject?
22 May 2008 at 11:53 am | #
No.
22 May 2008 at 04:42 pm | #
Yes it is a record. There’s been no other editorial devoted to attempting to embarrass one, lone poster. A record. No other post where The Beacon failed so miserably in their mission. A record. No other post where The Beacon was successfully badgered into finally admitting they purposely bash Democrats. Another record.
22 May 2008 at 04:50 pm | #
I’m sorry, let me try to answer again—this time with a link:
No.
You purposefully bash independents. What is your point? We “bash” anyone who needs it, regardless of party affiliation.
22 May 2008 at 07:36 pm | #
I don’t understand what the link to an article about a public figure has to do with your attack on me. But oh well, I guess you do.
I don’t bash Independents. I just don’t think there’s any such thing. I think they’re Republicans that don’t want to admit it, just like Libertarians. I like Greens. I bash Republicans, Republican supporters, DINOs (democrat in name only), closet Republicans, conservatives, homophobes, sexists, racists, elitists, in other words, again Republicans (primarily, see DINO).
23 May 2008 at 05:17 am | #
don’t bash Independents. I just don’t think there’s any such thing. I think they’re Republicans that don’t want to admit it, just like Libertarians. I like Greens. I bash Republicans, Republican supporters, DINOs (democrat in name only), closet Republicans, conservatives, homophobes, sexists, racists, elitists, in other words, again Republicans (primarily, see DINO).
DINO?
How about RINOs?
McCain is a RINO.
He is not a Republican, conservative, homophobe, sexist, racist, or an elitest.
23 May 2008 at 05:45 am | #
I bash Republicans.........says cincysuz
Do you HATE republicans?
Come on suz, you have to have some friends or relatives who are conservative Republicans. Do you hate them?
Do you hate the white male?
23 May 2008 at 11:26 am | #
Dean said: We “bash” anyone who needs it
You feel cincysuz needed a good “bash”? Is the “we” in that statement you and JJ?
23 May 2008 at 11:32 am | #
Don’t overestimate the time this took. It was easy—just copying and pasting.
I don’t view this as a “bash.” But it’s weird to watch cincysuz get upset at me for saying things that she actually said. She’s mad at her own opinions!
23 May 2008 at 06:11 pm | #
White Male - (1) First, this post is about me. I know you’re dying to have your own profile but it’s not going to happen. They only do this to people they disagree with. Get it? You’re one of them. (2)I work with Republicans and of course keep my mouth shut because in this part of the country and at this time, it’s dangerous to be anywhere left of center. I just observe. It gives me a window into how they think. I know if they knew how I feel, they’d be more guarded. They seem to like their own families. But for the most part, they dislike anyone different than them, they are racist and don’t know it because they like a small number of minorities that they think are different than all the rest. They also worship money and claim to worship god. So yes, I know some Republicans on a casual basis. In my own family everyone is converted. Moderate to left. No righties.
(3)I love white males. Many of my sons, sons-in-law, brothers, nephews, etc. are white males and some are not. So I love all males equally African American, Latin, Native American and all in between and all combinations.
Dean - I’m not mad at anything you’ve done. In fact I’m ever grateful. I’ve said I changed my mind, was inconsistent and will continue to be. So what? The important part here is that I stuck to my point that you are an anti-Democrat blog and you admitted it after denying it for months and months. I could, if you’d like, cut and paste all those denials and then you could profile yourself and have a good laugh..