Like Maria Said Paz: Shut up, Patty Arquette

Monday, January 16, 2017

Shut up, Patty Arquette

Patricia Arquette is an idiot and always has been.

(C.I. is friends with her. I'm speaking for myself.)

I can remember when the idiot was a devotee of Anais Nin.

Then she found out Nin was a bigamist -- Nin had been dead for over 20 years by this point -- and she hated Anais and couldn't shut up about it.

Anais Nin was a writer.

Grow up, Patty, you stupid ass.

What a lunatic she is.

She proves it again with this nonsense:

‏@PattyArquette

If U communicate like a 9 year old who skins cats & lights matches U will B spoken 2 accordingly. Hard 2 feel safe with America in UR hands.

21 replies134 retweets614 likes

You think that's cute?

I think it's cute that you don't have a TV show anymore and despite your Oscar win, you don't have a film career.

I think it's cute that your hideous teeth have never been fixed.

I think it's cute that Nicholas Cage left you. (I know him, I like him.)

Mainly, I think it's cute that you didn't speak out when Barack dropped bombs all over the world.

She's a disgrace.

She's 48-years-old. She's been acting forever.

But she still hasn't turned in one performance as challenging as her sister Rosanna.

Nothing she's done compares to Rosanna's work in BABY IT'S YOU, AFTER HOURS, NEW YORK STORIES, PULP FICTION, CRASH, BUFFALO 66 . . .

Rosanna is a gift and an artist.

Patricia's still just Rosanna's kid sister.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Monday, January 16, 2017. Chaos and violence continue, the Mosul slog continues, one editorial board asks about Iraq, and much more.

Goodness gracious, who has Donald Trump attacked today.

According to this morning's MORNING JOE, it's John Brennan.

Poor John Brennan, just minding his own damn business and wild and wacky Donald Trump attacks him?

‏@mtracey

CIA director goes on TV to mock and attack the incoming president. Interesting times.

120 replies337 retweets478 likes

As I dictate this over the phone, Dionne Warwick's coming out of the speakers wondering, "What's it all about, Alfie?"

Good question, Dionne.

What's it all about?

Gross stupidity, maybe.

A man stands at the podium onstage at a national convention and attacks Donald Trump.

Not the end of the world, it's politics.

Donald responds and it's, "Trump attacked him!!!!"

Corrupt John Lewis attacks Donald Trump and Donald responds and it's "Trump attacked him!"

Trump's responding.

I know him, remember?

Donald Trump's favorite topic is?

Donald Trump.

He wouldn't notice any of these people if they weren't attacking him.

Let's stay with the ridiculous bought-and-paid-for John Lewis. Patrick Martin (WSWS) observes:

There are many reasons to reject and oppose the presidency of Donald Trump: he personifies the financial oligarchy that now dominates the US political system and seeks to subordinate all public policy to its mad drive to amass ever-greater wealth; he has filled his cabinet and White House staff with ultra-right ideologues, fellow billionaires and ex-generals; his government is committed to a program of drastic cuts in social spending, for education, health care and other public services, combined with a massive military buildup.
Lewis, however, mentioned none of these things. He based his rejection of Trump on the report by US intelligence agencies about Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election campaign. “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton,” he said. “That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not the open democratic process.”
No evidence has been presented that proves that the Russian government was responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. The hue and cry over Russian hacking has two purposes: to conceal the actual content of the leaked emails, which showed the right-wing and antidemocratic character of the Clinton campaign; and to whip up public opinion in the United States in favor of political, economic, diplomatic and ultimately military “retaliation” against Russia.

John Lewis is the epitome of the "I've got mine" ethos.

Like a fair maiden from a courtlier era, dainty John stands there as the ignorant rush to defend him.

All they need to know they clearly did not learn on the playground.

Had they, they'd grasp that you sling hash at someone, they're going to sling it back.

By the way, that's not attacking, that's responding.

When Donald Trump is attacked, he responds.

But all these idiots think they can poke the bear and then, when Donald growls, whine, "Mommy, the mean old bear growled!!!"

Or course he did, you idiot.

What the hell did you expect?

Him to be your punching bag?

John Lewis knew what he was doing.

John Brennan knew what he was doing.

And if we want to worry, it's not about the hurt feelings of these two (and similar) titty babies, it's about what message they're sending to the world.

It's strange that, with the inauguration at the end of the week, no one's wanted to talk about that, isn't it?

All these attacks, all this nonsense of "Not My President"?

What message does that send the world?

Disrespect President Donald Trump and the US citizens will embrace you?

Donald's not been president for even one day but a very vocal and loud section of the US appears eager to see him toppled on the world stage.

That's very dangerous.

If, as president, he does something you disagree with, by all means, speak out.

But you need to accept the fact that he's president.

And that evil and vile Hillary will never be president.

And, grasp, I know Hillary. When I call her evil and vile, I do so for a reason -- a very good reason.

Her use of a private server and deletions of e-mails weren't a mistake.

She knew what she was doing.

Her working with DNC cronies to get debate questions ahead of time and to destroy Bernie Sanders weren't glitches, they were her character.

I didn't think Bernie should have been allowed to run in the Democratic Party.

That was really just me and Big Ed (Rendell).

But as was explained to us -- and this was all up here in real time -- Hillary wanted an opponent to run against.

Not a real opponent, mind you, but a straw man she could easily defeat.

Bernie Sanders turned out to be a lot stronger than Hillary calculated and she turned out to be a lot weaker than she knew.

I hope she does run for mayor of NYC because so many of us are ready and willing to throw millions into that race to ensure she loses in the primary.

She's currently stress eating and flying off the handle at everyone (including poor Bill). Her attempts at campaigning in such a state would destroy whatever's left of her image, so run Hillary, please run.

Hillary is a War Hawk. She's responsible for the deaths of so many people around the world.

And her weak characterization of her vote for the Iraq War as a "mistake" in 2008 morphed, by 2016, into her "mistake" was to trust that Bully Boy Bush would send enough troops into Iraq.

That was her 'informed' Iraq War critique: The problem with the Iraq War was that not enough troops had been sent in.

That dirty whore never stops lying, does she?

That 'excuse' is laughable -- it was an illegal war built on lies.

But a functioning press would have spent last year calling the War Hag out.

'Hillary Clinton says her mistake on the Iraq War today was trusting that Bully Boy Bush would send enough troops into Iraq but, strangely, if we drop back to 2007, we find this:'

Hillary Clinton today said she was against moves to increase the number of US troops in Iraq, instead calling for more resources to be devoted to Afghanistan.
In a round of TV and radio interviews prior to her formal declaration that she will seek the Democratic nomination for the presidency - expected to be made within days - Ms Clinton tackled her previous ambiguity about Iraq, which some analysts see as a notable weakness.
Speaking a day after Barack Obama, the charismatic senator seen as her chief rival for the Democratic ticket, took his first steps towards entering the 2008 race, Ms Clinton said she opposed George Bush's plans to send a 'surge' of more than 20,000 extra troops to Iraq.

Her War Hawk nature is not a minor point.

Nor is her lying.

Former CIA operative Gloria Steinem (isn't it nice that we've ripped off the band aid that once covered that fact) has repeatedly whined that women like Hillary are always faced with the argument that she's not the "right" woman.

What Gloria forgets -- well, she forgets so much -- is that it's equally true that it doesn't have to be a woman.

See Gloria and The Debra Messings wanted a woman president so damn much that they were willing to settle on Hillary.

Hillary has destroyed nearly everything we are supposed to believe in on the left.

And her image -- her earned image -- is as one big, fat liar.

We could do better.

And maybe if we'd rejected Hillary, Donald Trump would not be on the verge of being inaugurated.

Maybe next go round, vote the one who best represents your beliefs and not the one who ticks off your White and entitled version of 'progress.'

Smart people would realize that.

Sadly, smart people do not currently include ANTIWAR.COM's Jason Ditz who wrote yesterday:

After weeks of limited territory changing hands but large casualties, Iraqi forces inside the eastern half of Mosul appear to be getting some new momentum, speeding up their advance measurably as they near the Tigris River, though still facing stiff resistance, and with no timetable for entering the larger, western half of the ISIS-held city.

Day 91 of this operation to recover Mosul does not speak to "new momentum."

I get it.

Brett McGurk's been working the media the way he always does.

(Hey, Brett, who'd you park your dirty dick in this time?)

And they've run with "new momentum."

But presumably Jason has had no contact with Brett or his too often whipped out tool.

And Jason's at an outlet entitled ANTIWAR.COM so this need to accept government pro-war spin is especially sad.

Day 91.

Repeating, day 91.

It could end on day 92 and it would still be an embarrassing 'liberation' strictly due to the amount of time it's taken -- and this is with US forces dropping bombs and working on the ground.

Eugene Puryear (LIBERATION NEWS) offers:

One of the most significant fallacies in U.S. foreign policy circles is the idea that there are “no boots on the ground” in the Middle East, a philosophy that politicians trumpet over and over again. Well, there are boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq there are roughly 5,000 troops on the ground and in Syria there are 500, mostly special operations soldiers.
This is consistently portrayed incorrectly in the U.S. media. All U.S. forces are portrayed as “trainers” or support personal, with the implication being that they are more or less out of harm’s way. This is part of a broader attempt by the Pentagon and the Obama administration to try to have their interventions not classified as “wars.” This is a propaganda effect designed to lessen oversight and controls from Congress, and also to keep the people from erupting in anger. Fewer than 50 percent of people in the U.S. support sending troops to Syria; fewer than 30 percent support sending arms to Syrian “rebels.”
Slim majorities of support, or at the very least complacence, can be maintained as long as it appears the U.S. isn’t rushing headlong into new Middle East wars, but anything beyond that risks the eruption of a new anti-war movement that could be political disorienting (and perhaps even destabilizing) for the political elite.
The reality, however, is that the U.S. intervention in both Syria and Iraq is really quite significant if we look beyond pure numbers.
For instance in Iraq, U.S. troops are playing a major role operating artillery to support Iraqi forces advances on the Islamic State. The Kurdish news outlet Rudaw described the U.S. artillery as “pounding” ISIS positions in support of the Iraqi army offensive in Mosul in late December. U.S. forces are also providing spotters for air strikes. In any modern large-scale offensive these are not side pieces, but the necessary ingredients to give the Iraqi military the edge they need to defeat the Islamic State which on their own they were failing to do.

On top of that the U.S. military has now admitted that there are 450 U.S. troops embedded with Iraqi combat units inside of Mosul itself. If that isn’t enough. on January 10 Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter stated that even if the Islamic State is defeated in Iraq, the U.S. will not leave, in fact, he stated that the United States will most likely leave a residual force in the country.

With all that, the 91 days of this operation are even more embarrassing.

"New momentum" should also be rejected due to what's going on in Mosul.

Things like . . .

While Jason Ditz rubs one out over alleged "new momentum," it's left to the editorial board of the PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE to tackle the big question:

One question that should be high on the foreign policy agenda of President-elect Donald Trump is whether America should continue the war in Iraq, which now risks having ensnared three U.S. presidents.

The Iraq War has now cost the taxpayers $2 trillion. Nearly 4,500 Americans have died, the conflict arguably spawned the Islamic State and some 5,000 American troops are still engaged there. Iraq’s predominantly Shiite government, led by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, still has not gained the support or even the acquiescence of Iraq’s mixed population.

New content at THIRD:

Iraq