Wednesday, September 04, 2013

I Believe David Sirota Just Called Out Thomas Jefferson

But perhaps I'm wrong.

Maybe he meant John Adams.

Or Harry Truman.

Or Lincoln.

Obviously he could not have been referring to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who famously began each battle of World War II by having Eleanor sound horn of Helm Hammerhand
after which he rode out at the head of his army to personally meet the Wehrmacht Uruk-hai on the field.


Overclock speedy said...

David Sirota has just made an argument for some sort of Star Trek style military dictatorship. I'm not sure how I feel about this. My time was spent with the Navy and Marines, and while they do have their faults at least shit got done and lunatics weren't allowed power.

Anonymous said...

I am a regular follower and lately I find your posts slipping into non sequitor. I don't know your position on Syria or why. You are getting more and more self-righteous and overbearing and I find that even though I agree with you most of the time I wish you would just shut up.

Anonymous said...

I think this entire post is hyperbole.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Perhaps we need to review the definition of hyperbole.

But surely Sirota was referring to Don Rumsfeld. Cheney? Or that other guy, you know, the one with the short name that the Republicans can never remember.

Anonymous said...

Will you stop working Driftglass? Leave him alone!

Damian, Pink No More said...

So if you're all so offended, leave. I did that with Balloon Juice when dry drunk John Cole exposed himself as a full-on firebag.

The difference is, I didn't stay for weeks, declaring every post to be whatever term DG has used within the past week at least once because ho ho, aren't we clever turning it around on him like that, ho ho.

Jack said...

Anonymous from 8:14: Can you explain the non sequitur? The post seems perfectly logical to me. Sirota shot his mouth off without giving a moment's thought to the absolute absurdity of what he was saying. Driftglass nailed him -- and he nailed him hilariously.

Besides, isn't Sirota going after a straw man? Who really said Obama was showing "bravery" or "courage" ordering others to die?

For that matter, who did Obama order to die?

Why don't you go after Sirota for his idiotic comment and the dishonest suggestions he makes in it?

Or are you in that camp that says it's okay to lie when you're doing so in the service of the right cause?

Jack said...

Agreed, Damian.

I quit TYT for the same reason: They went full firebagger and now spend half their time sucking off Rand Paul and lying through their teeth.

I don't know why this issue -- NSA, Greenwald, Snowden, etc. -- is so emotional for people on both sides of the issue. But it is.

I'm glad Driftglass hasn't put a finger in the air and changed his message accordingly. Not only is Driftglass showing courage and integrity in standing up for what he really believes, he's doing important work: If we can't reign in the purity troll instinct on the left, we're going to have a repeat of Nader 2000, and see Ted Cruz or Rand Paul elected president in 2016 -- because people like "anonymous" can't tell the difference between a moderate like Obama and a full blown enemy of everything we value like Ted Cruz.

Overclock speedy said...

@zombie rotten McDonald

Cheney is a chicken hawk and a coward. Bush joined, but was protected, his father is an actual war hero though. Rummy was an active duty Naval Aviator and flight instructor, he also made a point to stay in active reserves and not inactive when he left the service. He only deactivated when he was tapped for SECDEF.

Whatever else you can say about him, implying Rumsfeld is not a serious person and was afraid to done the uniform is utter bullshit.

I fault his management system and predictions as being typical of the aviators. The blue Navy is one thing, aviators are their own animal with in it. For those of us on/were on the surface (strike ops and ship boardings) and green (hit the ground with the USMC) it's not shocking he fucked things up the way he did.

But he's got more brass that Sirota ever will, and that makes his mistakes all the more tragic. He should have known better, Sirota is a know nothing and a comedic individual.

And... I can't believe you made me defend Rummy. I met him a few times when I worked at the Pentagon, also see him out and about in Dupont at times. He looks and seems nothing like on TV, he's a tiny fucking dude LOL.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we need to review the definition of hyperbole.

Alrighty then.

Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.


Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who famously began each battle of World War II by having Eleanor sound horn of Helm Hammerhand... after which he rode out at the head of his army to personally meet the Wehrmacht Uruk-hai on the field.

Anonymous said...

Good morning, all.

Not one to waste an opportunity...

Does anyone know the last prominent example of a political leader who DID ride out into battle with his or her troops?

My thanks in advance.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Kevin Holsinger

Hef said...

I can't be the only one laughing at the fine example of non sequitor given by yet another anonymous troll. "I am a regular follower and I wish you would just shut up". Where do you begin to make sense of that comment?

Anonymous said...

well played, anonymous 12:19...NOW see if you can google the difference between hyperbole and FUCKING SARCASM! Good grief.

Overclock speedy said...


Well... as civilian leaders do not currently fight with the military and many of them lack any military background riding out with your army doesn't happen all that much.

However if talking American Presidents who did serve... welp. Poppy Bush enlisted young into the military in WW2 and became a Naval war hero. Carter joined the Navy as well and was involved with Nuclear Subs. Nixon was a Naval war hero as well. Gerald Ford was a Navy pilot as well. JFK lied about his illness to join the Navy and was also decorated, I think IKEs military history speaks for itself.

None of these guys did it as president, but they all did it at one point or the other.

Anonymous said...

@Overclock Speedy.

Thanks for the attempt. It's the "did it as President", or "as Prime Minister", or "as King" part I'm interested in.

Basically, I'm building a fictional world, and I've been thinking about the idea of hero/villain-politicians (Doctor Doom, Odysseus, King Arthur, etc.). For whatever reason, it persists to this day, despite modern politicians not personally engaging in physical battle while in office.

So I wanted to know when exactly this all stopped. I want to say Napoleon, but I don't recall enough of history to be confident about that.

Anyway, thanks.

Kevin Holsinger

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

speedy, serving in the forces is not the same as riding into battle. Rumsfeld and Bush actually support drifty's hyperbole.

The last one I can think of is Prince William, serving in the Falklands I think? And not yet a King.

Nobody would allow the head of a country to serve in active warfare, which is the stupid part of Sirota's tweet.

And mister no-nym, the part you mention IS hyperbole. It is not, however the whole of the post. And it serves to make the point, so seems to me it's an appropriate use.

Overclock speedy said...


It still does happen, in a military dictatorship. It happened all the time in Monarchies.

While not a head of state the younger prince of the UK went to Afghanistan and fought, that's the closest you're going to get to it in the modern era unless you're talking about military dictatorships, a coup, or a rebel group.

Anonymous said...

Sarcasm is "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt."[1][2] In modern usage, the word "sarcasm" is commonly interpreted as involving irony,[3] or employs ambivalence,[4] but traditionally sarcasm was not necessarily irony.[5]

What Driftglass employed was hyperbole, not sarcasm.

And mister no-nym, the part you mention IS hyperbole. It is not, however the whole of the post.

Perhaps that was hyperbole, then.

And it serves to make the point, so seems to me it's an appropriate use.

Perhaps so, but rather hypocritical when used by one who criticizes others for using the same rhetorical device.

Damn rhetoric!


Damian, Pink No More said...

Given our pants-pissing troll friend's continued insistence on trying to smear DG as being everything that he himself criticizes, I believe reposting this is apropos:

"Driftglass cares about a lot of those 'other' issues"

And that's why they hate him. He - along with the rest of us who don't play the Both Sides game because we see it for the bullshit it is - doesn't care about the pet issue of the Rich White Glibertarian Males over things like equal rights for GLBTQ people, or the right of a woman to bodily autonomy, or the endless struggle for some level of equality under the law for those of a skin tone darker than fish-belly white, or the equally endless struggle of the economically underprivileged against the lengthening odds for survival (which crosses over with all the aforementioned).

To the RWGM crowd mentioned above, these things don't matter - they're not going to lose their rights tomorrow because of some Rich White Right-Wing Male asshole's decision to enact a Fuck Those Not-Us People law. So these issues aren't important, and politics becomes an abstraction; a matter of principles over people.

But they'll never admit that. No, they'll couch all their concerns in dense, symbolist bullshit about Freedom!!! and Government Force!!! and endless ad-hominem attacks of "AUTHORITARIAN! SHEEP! WARMONGER!" against anyone who won't play the game their way. They've listened to the way we talk to their secret friends on the Right and they think they've got the inside scoop on how to win the argument.

The result? Something resembling one of those sitcom/cartoon episodes where some innocent character, usually a child, learns a Word You Can't Say On TV and starts using it freely, puzzled as to why all the adults suddenly look scandalized or outraged at what seems so useful a word. The difference is that these particular children don't listen when we try to explain what is and isn't appropriate, and gleefully continue their misdeeds.

TL;DR version: Fuck 'em 'cause they don't care.

Anonymous said...

What do RWGMs have to do with Driftglass being a hypocrite?

Anonymous said...

Look, anon, it's obvious that Driftglass's post was sarcastic even if the particular phrase you quoted was sarcastic hyperbole. It's not like that other time when it was just a flat out lie.

Damian, Pink No More said...

And as if on cue, the same pants-pissing RWGM posts with yet another tautological brainfuck.

If you're too stupid to understand it, kid, then maybe you oughta shut up while the adults are talking.

Jack said...

Righteous rant, Damian.

Anonymous said...

@Overclock speedy

That's closer to what I'm looking for. Thanks for the insight.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Kevin Holsinger

Phil said...

Its not the politicians and civilians who make military decisions that bother me. At least then have to face the voters. It is people on the right or left that say "we should...." Fill-in the blank about who they think "we" (meaning of course not them) should blow up. Speaking as a veteran of Desert Storm, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, I alwas have to say what do you mean we kemosabe