Let's get drug-tested y'all

[Jimmie Higgins]

Robert Gibbs says leftwing critics of Obama 'ought to be drug tested' (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0811-gibbs-strikes-back-20100810,0,4230749.story)


"I hear these people saying he's like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "I mean, it's crazy."

Where do people get the idea that the Obama administration is like the Bush administration? I mean the Bush administration dismissed left-wing anti-war sentiment as a "special interest" the Obama administration never dismisses left-wing critics like that... oh wait.

[Adi Shankara]

Robert Gibbs says leftwing critics of Obama 'ought to be drug tested' (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0811-gibbs-strikes-back-20100810,0,4230749.story)



Where do people get the idea that the Obama administration is like the Bush administration? I mean the Bush administration dismissed left-wing anti-war sentiment as a "special interest" the Obama administration never dismisses left-wing critics like that... oh wait.

Fucking prick. he should get tested for bullet impermeability, right below his temple.

The asswipe is assuming that if you're against center-rightwing governments, you need to get "drug-tested". more proof that Obama hates the left wing and is really just a far-right jerk!

[Os Cangaceiros]

This left-wing critic of Obama already gets drug tested, so it's all good!

Anyway, Robert Gibbs continues to provide comic relief courtesy of the White House, which as far as I can tell is the only real function that the job of press secretary fulfills.

[Kuppo Shakur]

We should all send Robert Gibbs little jars full of our pee.

[Adi Shankara]

We should all send Robert Gibbs little jars full of our pee.

That may be the best protest statement I heard yet, no sarcasm.

[leftace53]

We should all send Robert Gibbs little jars full of our pee.

This is nothing short of genius, I will keep it in mind the next time I go pee.


I might pass this one though.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'll get drug tested if they drug test that racist fuck, Rush Limbaugh.

[gorillafuck]

I'd be up for sending my pee to Robert Gibbs.

[Qayin]

looks like im failing

[Adil3tr]

Fucking prick. he should get tested for bullet impermeability, right below his temple.

The asswipe is assuming that if you're against center-rightwing governments, you need to get "drug-tested". more proof that Obama hates the left wing and is really just a far-right jerk!

That seems a bit much, I mean, I thought we flew off the handle when we saw images of child labor, not by offhand comments by the obama administration about us being druggies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

We should all send Robert Gibbs little jars full of our pee.
This is the best thing ever! I'm running with this. I'll have to find a young child or a straight-edger and make him drink a bunch of water though first.

Maybe we can do something about this... start a new group of left-wing critics of Obama: "the Pee-Party"

[Salyut]

We should all send Robert Gibbs little jars full of our pee.

You know how militant animal rights people will some times throw paint on people wearing fur?

Like that.

But with urine.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think Jimmie is particularly offended since his group gave backhand support to Obama.

[S.Artesian]

I've was drug tested on a random basis for 25 years, clean on everyone of them, and yeah, I say Obama's just like Bush.

Extending Bush's "raid the workplace" anti-immigrant labor program; rescuing Wall Street; continuing the wars in the Persian Gulf and Afrghanistan; funding terrorism in Iran, against Palestine...

Bush fucked up so much he made it impossible to get a white man elected. Enter the brown O-bomb-er.

[Red Commissar]

Drug test revleft? Well at least it will provide some long term employment.

[Qayin]

O-bomb-er.

I'llbombya

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

By the way, according to this the capitalist papers that should have been drug tested back in 2008 when they admitted Obama's presidency would essentially be Bush's third term.

“Regardless of who wins in November, the current foreign policy will live on in the next White House.” - "Don't Expect A Big Change in U.S. Foreign Policy." Wall Street Journal, 2008.

“Surprisingly, given McCain's reputation as a hawk and Obama's as a peacenik, they don't differ much in their ideas... Both want to increase the size of the military and provide more training and equipment...” - The Los Angeles Times, June 8, 2008.

[Qayin]

By the way, according to this the capitalist papers that should have been drug tested back in 2008 when they admitted Obama's presidency would essentially be Bush's third term.

“Regardless of who wins in November, the current foreign policy will live on in the next White House.” - "Don't Expect A Big Change in U.S. Foreign Policy." Wall Street Journal, 2008.

“Surprisingly, given McCain's reputation as a hawk and Obama's as a peacenik, they don't differ much in their ideas... Both want to increase the size of the military and provide more training and equipment...” - The Los Angeles Times, June 8, 2008.


But but but but OBAMAS A DEMOCRAT

[S.Artesian]

No buts about it. He's a Democrat. The bombardier party of the bourgeoisie.

[Qayin]

more like of the people, you some kinda republican?

[~Spectre]

By the way, according to this the capitalist papers that should have been drug tested back in 2008 when they admitted Obama's presidency would essentially be Bush's third term.

“Regardless of who wins in November, the current foreign policy will live on in the next White House.” - "Don't Expect A Big Change in U.S. Foreign Policy." Wall Street Journal, 2008.

“Surprisingly, given McCain's reputation as a hawk and Obama's as a peacenik, they don't differ much in their ideas... Both want to increase the size of the military and provide more training and equipment...” - The Los Angeles Times, June 8, 2008.

Most of the serious press managed to make just enough mention of this to maintain self respect, but no one seems to have noticed. Even Hitchens stated this various times.


z4OI0GUCI_A

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think Jimmie is particularly offended since his group gave backhand support to Obama.:rolleyes:

I think you dropped your tin-foil hat.

Go read some of our old articles from the campaign. Our perspective (not that different from anyone else on the radical left) was spot-on; the only thing we were wrong about was that we thought that liberals were going to be more aggressive in passing some surface reforms in order to quickly ease class anger brought on from the recession.

The right wing and slight recovery in the stock markets allowed Obama to have the room to tell people "now is not the time for reforms". But if there was much more working class anger from below being expressed, don't be suprized if the Democrats pass a bunch of surface type things in an attempt to draw people back into that fold. That's what the Democrats do in relation to the working class - co-opt our anger and our movements back into avenues that are acceptable to the ruling class.

Our group published a book about the historical role of the Democrats - have you written a book like that? You haven't? Why not, don't you want to explain to people how the Democrats are a ruling class party? Have you not written a book like this because you tacitly support the Democratic party and don't want to criticize them? That must be the case :rolleyes:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

“If a Democrat wins the White House and the Democrats hold the Congress, will this mark a rebirth of liberalism? The answer is both yes and no. In the sense that both Clinton and Obama stand to the ‘left’ of McCain on most issues, and a Democratic victory would break years of right-wing Republican dominance, liberalism would receive a boost. What is more, millions of Americans would vote for Democratic candidates hoping that they would act on the issues that concern the majority: ending the war in Iraq, fixing the housing mess, providing universal health care. If the mainstream political system began to raise these ‘liberal’ issues, people’s expectations that something could be done about them would be raised. And just breaking the stifling conservative orthodoxy of the last generation would make liberalism a more viable ideological alternative for millions who want to see real social change.” - International Socialist Review (March-April 2008)

"MILLIONS OF people jammed into Washington, D.C., to see history being made yesterday, and to celebrate the official beginning of a new era in American politics.

...

"These images couldn't be more of a contrast to eight years ago, when George W. Bush scurried into the White House, thanks to a 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court not to count every vote in the 2000 election. Bush's inauguration was a meager gathering of political insiders, conservative cranks and corporate lobbyists, with angry protesters lining the inaugural parade route.

...

"The end of the Bush regime was bound to be a cause for celebration ...There was no more satisfying sight than Bush climbing the stairs to his helicopter and flying away.

"But the inauguration of Barack Obama meant much more than the end of Bush....

"It couldn't be otherwise with the countless Black faces throughout the vast crowd in Washington--and with the sense of pride, extending beyond African Americans alone, that some of the cruel sins of America's past were finally being overcome.

"The Obama campaign has had a profound impact. After a generation of the conservative agenda dominating in Washington, when the White House and Congress seemed wholly insulated from any influence by ordinary people, Obama's victory convinced large numbers of people of some basic sentiments at the heart of the great struggles of the past--that something different is possible, and that what we do matters.


"But there's another lesson to be drawn from the experience of the civil rights movement, the fight for women's suffrage and the struggle for unions: Their strength rested on the willingness to remain independent and mobilize for justice, no matter what president was sitting in the White House.

"Obama himself gave voice to these lessons about how social change is made in an answer to a question about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at a Democratic candidates' debate during the early primaries. His words were extraordinary..." - "Looking Forward To Change," SocialistWorker.net

Of course some "socialist" rhetoric appears in that article too. It adds up to a call to "pressure" Obama and co.

That's specifically what was called for in 2009 (see: New openings to push Obama (http://socialistworker.org/2009/04/28/new-openings-to-push)). This talk of "holding Obama accountable" is typical of the liberal left.

By now you can see some of the same disappointment setting in that you can see on any number of liberal websites and blogs.


Our group published a book about the historical role of the Democrats - have you written a book like that? You haven't? Why not, don't you want to explain to people how the Democrats are a ruling class party? Have you not written a book like this because you tacitly support the Democratic party and don't want to criticize them? That must be the case

Actually, I wrote a pamphlet months before the election entitled "Obama and McCain: Two Sides of the Same Imperialist Coin" that my organization distributed as widely as it could at the time. Unlike "the rest of the radical left," we pointed out that: "Barrack Obama and John McCain are simply two 'new' versions of the same old crap."

Upon his election, I wrote another entitled: "Obamanation: Dreams of Change and the Hard Reality." In that piece, we attempted to tear down illusions by pointing out that: "By promoting the lie that 'change' could be brought about through elections, Obama was able to build a renewed enthusiasm in 'democracy' and integrate people who were otherwise hostile to the rulers and their system into it."

Meanwhile your organization was timidly inquiring whether Obama would "deliver what its supporters expect?" and holding Obama election celebrations in Harlem.

[Saorsa]

Um, none of those emboldened sentences amount to support for Obama.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's back handed support.

They adorned their magazine with his campaign slogan. They did all they could to tie themselves in with "Obamamania" without actually endorsing him. They welcomed and encouraged his victory over McCain because it would usher in a "new era in politics," "make liberalism more viable," "have a profound impact," "overcome some of America's cruel sins," etc. In short, they supported the same illusions the bourgeoisie pushed.

And if that wasn't enough, they celebrated his election with a victory party in Harlem.

They promoted the lie that Obama doesn't have to serve the interests of capital, but can instead be "pushed to the left" to build support for their own organization, which aims to pressure the Democrats (just like the DSA, PDA, et al).

Of course it wasn't just the ISO. Much of the left lent some degree of support to Obama.

http://www.internationalist.org/pwwnewera0901.jpg

http://www.internationalist.org/wwobamavictory0811.jpg

The only groups that I'm aware of that came out and openly opposed Obama are WPA/CL and the usual "Trotskyist" sects (Sparts, IG, SEP, etc).

[the last donut of the night]

i'm pretty sure weed doesn't make me more critical of obama (more than i already am)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Um, none of those emboldened sentences amount to support for Obama.I know, he's on some weird crusade that is really annoying and makes me doubt any of his political points if he puts so much effort into purposefully misrepresenting another group's positions.

It's like he was suddenly possessed by the ghost of a Spart or something.

I'll put the position simply and maybe he'll grasp it even if he doesn't agree:

Popular hope = good! Hope in Obama = misguided.

That's it, we've been critical of Obama all along, but we also wanted win the people whohad illusions in Obama over to the radical left and away from the Democrats. Hence publishing a book about the historical role of the Democrats in 2008 so that we could promote a left-wing critique of the party.

[KurtFF8]

I can imagine the headline now "Leftists organize urine sent to Gibbs office"

That would certainly make the news.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I can imagine the headline now "Leftists organize urine sent to Gibbs office"

That would certainly make the news.
They'd probably accuse us of sending deadly "biological agents" to the white house.

[KurtFF8]

For sure

[Saorsa]

the only groups that i'm aware of that came out and openly opposed obama are wpa/cl and the usual "trotskyist" sects (sparts, ig, sep, etc).

rcp? Psl?

[~Spectre]

They'd probably accuse us of sending deadly "biological agents" to the white house.

Innocent civilians were harmed in a cold blooded act of bio-terrorism. Groups involved are radical Anti-American militants linked to Hamas and Cuban state intelligence services.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

rcp? Psl?

The PSL also wants to pressure the Democrats.

After Obama's election they said: “What is needed is a clear program focused on what the new administration should do to meet the needs of the working people.”

As if Obama's administration could "meet the needs of working people."

They also hailed union mobilizations of members to do foot work for the Obama campaign.

The RCP did oppose Obama, but they built support for the Democrats in the preceding years with their "World Can't Wait" campaign.

[The Red Next Door]

Yeah, I would get myself test, and give Mr. Gibbbs. My piss via his mouth. I hope you like that sweet sour taste.

[KurtFF8]

The PSL also wants to pressure the Democrats.

After Obama's election they said: “What is needed is a clear program focused on what the new administration should do to meet the needs of the working people.”

As if Obama's administration could "meet the needs of working people."

They also hailed union mobilizations of members to do foot work for the Obama campaign.

The RCP did oppose Obama, but they built support for the Democrats in the preceding years with their "World Can't Wait" campaign.

I know, they supported Obama so much that they ran their own Presidential candidate who called for socialist revolution and called the Dems a false solution.

And are you sure they hailed the union mobilizations in praise of Bbama, or are you referring to how the unions fought back against propaganda that they were all just racist and opposed to him because he was a black man?

That's something to be praised in my opinion.

The PSL certainly doesn't want to "pressure the Democrats"

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The PSL is all about pressure politics. Who do you think slogans/demands like "fund schools not war" are aimed at? They can only be aimed at the people who make the budgets: the politicians in office.

The reality is that the capitalist state serves the capitalist class, and can't be reformed, pressured, pushed, etc., into meeting the needs of the working class.

I won't get into their popular frontism and liberal anti-war marches where they open their stage to Democrats, liberals, reactionaries, etc.


And are you sure they hailed the union mobilizations in praise of Bbama [sic]Yep, positive.

"This mass organizational effort by the labor movement, undertaken in the context of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, systematically challenges the backward ideas of racism that are still pervasive among white workers. Organized labor struggles create the material basis to understand the necessity for multinational unity. The basis for that unity includes experiences of unified struggles against the bosses, whose exploitation they feel in and out of the workplace, combined with a direct and open challenge to views based on racist prejudice."

There you go, fighting for a black bosses' candidate = fighting against the bosses.

"This particular struggle revolved around the union leadership’s urgency in getting a Democrat in the White House given the worsening economic crisis and growing attacks on labor. Regardless of whether the support of union leaders for Obama will translate into substantial gains for workers, their tactical orientation necessitated a struggle against racism and their organizational apparatus enabled a mass, progressive shift in consciousness."

Unions mobilizing workers to vote for a Democrat (as they usually do) = 'a mass, progressive shift in consciousness.'

"...Just as the organizational apparatus of the labor movement pushed working-class consciousness forward to meet the needs of an immediate struggle, a revolutionary organization can push working-class consciousness forward to meet the needs of the struggle for revolution."

The union bosses = the labor movement; and working to get Obama elected pushed 'working-class conscious forward.'

:rolleyes:

Of course you're aware of this, since you posted the article here in 2008: http://www.revleft.com/vb/labor-unions-key-t95077/index.html?t=95077

Just to add to that, you approvingly included a pro-Obama video from Richard Trumka --the top union bureaucrat in the United States, who is notorious throughout the coal fields for fucking over mine workers -- gushing over how "powerful" it was.

[KurtFF8]

The PSL is all about pressure politics. Who do you think slogans/demands like "fund schools not war" are aimed at? They can only be aimed at the people who make the budgets: the politicians in office.

The reality is that the capitalist state serves the capitalist class, and can't be reformed, pressured, pushed, etc., into meeting the needs of the working class.

I won't get into their popular frontism and liberal anti-war marches where they open their stage to Democrats, liberals, reactionaries, etc.

You're assuming that their strategy here is to successfully pressure the capitalist state to do what they want. In reality, however, they are trying to highlight the contradictions of the state to build class consciousness.


Yep, positive.

"This mass organizational effort by the labor movement, undertaken in the context of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, systematically challenges the backward ideas of racism that are still pervasive among white workers. Organized labor struggles create the material basis to understand the necessity for multinational unity. The basis for that unity includes experiences of unified struggles against the bosses, whose exploitation they feel in and out of the workplace, combined with a direct and open challenge to views based on racist prejudice."

There you go, fighting for a black bosses' candidate = fighting against the bosses.

"This particular struggle revolved around the union leadership’s urgency in getting a Democrat in the White House given the worsening economic crisis and growing attacks on labor. Regardless of whether the support of union leaders for Obama will translate into substantial gains for workers, their tactical orientation necessitated a struggle against racism and their organizational apparatus enabled a mass, progressive shift in consciousness."

Unions mobilizing workers to vote for a Democrat (as they usually do) = 'a mass, progressive shift in consciousness.'

"...Just as the organizational apparatus of the labor movement pushed working-class consciousness forward to meet the needs of an immediate struggle, a revolutionary organization can push working-class consciousness forward to meet the needs of the struggle for revolution."

The union bosses = the labor movement; and working to get Obama elected pushed 'working-class conscious forward.'

:rolleyes:

Of course you're aware of this, since you posted the article here in 2008: http://www.revleft.com/vb/labor-unions-key-t95077/index.html?t=95077

Just to add to that, you approvingly included a pro-Obama video from Richard Trumka --the top union bureaucrat in the United States, who is notorious throughout the coal fields for fucking over mine workers -- gushing over how "powerful" it was.

And union mobalization in spite of claims against racism is indeed a good thing. I hold by that.

I also hold by Trumka's anti-racist speech (and that was the main thing about the speech I praised). The support to the Democratic Party is something that I, along with the PSL, are critical of the union movement for of course.

The union movement certainly doesn't have a great history in terms of racism, so these developments are important. The idea that they are negligible because the Democrats/Capitalist state are involved seems to be holding to some purist version of organizing.

Communists should enter into movements where they are and try to transform them, I don't see where the PSL was in error here.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't see where the PSL was in error here.

I know you don't. And that's the problem.

[RebelDog]

As Chomsky says Obama is just more of the same. This carry on about 'hope' and 'change' is something he never even gave any personal substance to. He is just another democrat president and not even progressive. When we talk about about what is achievable within US democracy we might as well talk about what is achievable within the democratic sphere of the corporation, ie nothing. Both institutions serve specific interests and are not designed to meet the needs of those without power. Hope and change lie outwith these institutions. If Obama wanted real social change in the USA, and wanted to address the real social inequality that is US society and the great crimes the US government perpetrates around the globe, he would not have constrained his freedom of action by becoming US president.

[The Red Next Door]

Let test Gibbs and Obama, for crack. I think they been smoking it a lot, these days.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As Chomsky says Obama is just more of the same.That would probably be more credible if he hadn't endorsed Obama (http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2008/10/noam-chomsky-en.html) (and Kerry before that (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/20/uselections2004.usa)).