HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I never, ever thought I'd...

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:11 AM

 

I never, ever thought I'd see the day

when people who call themselves progressive Democrats excuse a vote to wage war in Iraq.

Astounding.

Sorry, I don't see this as a gray area. It was nothing but staggering stupidity or staggering malevolence, and neither is acceptable to me, nor should it be acceptable to you.

462 replies, 37382 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 462 replies Author Time Post
Reply I never, ever thought I'd see the day (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 OP
marym625 Mar 2015 #1
BP2 Mar 2015 #137
SCVDem Mar 2015 #162
former9thward Mar 2015 #192
hifiguy Mar 2015 #216
KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #345
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #420
mrmpa Mar 2015 #171
former9thward Mar 2015 #190
mrmpa Mar 2015 #217
former9thward Mar 2015 #226
mrmpa Mar 2015 #231
former9thward Mar 2015 #267
BeanMusical Mar 2015 #375
Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #337
Ken Burch Mar 2015 #389
Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #414
Ken Burch Mar 2015 #421
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #279
dflprincess Mar 2015 #322
KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #343
B Calm Mar 2015 #388
KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #401
Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #413
KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #435
Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #438
KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #440
Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #441
cui bono Mar 2015 #378
marym625 Mar 2015 #387
L0oniX Mar 2015 #332
marym625 Mar 2015 #334
drynberg Mar 2015 #381
marym625 Mar 2015 #385
LWolf Mar 2015 #2
RiverLover Mar 2015 #9
marym625 Mar 2015 #19
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #27
LWolf Mar 2015 #63
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #68
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #83
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #143
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #150
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #155
Maedhros Mar 2015 #326
cui bono Mar 2015 #380
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #444
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #445
Marr Mar 2015 #126
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #131
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #422
Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #79
LWolf Mar 2015 #128
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #132
BrotherIvan Mar 2015 #177
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #180
BrotherIvan Mar 2015 #219
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #228
Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #210
Doctor_J Mar 2015 #207
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #74
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #398
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #406
840high Mar 2015 #106
HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #138
LWolf Mar 2015 #152
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2015 #318
HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #328
friendly_iconoclast Mar 2015 #335
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #350
Enthusiast Mar 2015 #392
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #3
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #5
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #6
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #10
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #15
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #86
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #96
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #211
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #214
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #139
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #148
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #159
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #161
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #172
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #174
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #178
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #179
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #184
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #185
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #276
think Mar 2015 #14
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #16
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #90
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #97
cui bono Mar 2015 #382
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #400
cui bono Mar 2015 #432
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #433
MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #42
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #43
rhett o rick Mar 2015 #73
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #89
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #93
marym625 Mar 2015 #100
Autumn Mar 2015 #13
zeemike Mar 2015 #50
ellennelle Mar 2015 #82
Agony Mar 2015 #298
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #33
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #34
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #85
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #92
sammythecat Mar 2015 #291
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #292
sammythecat Mar 2015 #300
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #305
zeemike Mar 2015 #59
Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #84
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #94
BumRushDaShow Mar 2015 #390
Jackpine Radical Mar 2015 #410
Logical Mar 2015 #238
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #241
Logical Mar 2015 #243
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #247
Logical Mar 2015 #251
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #252
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #255
Logical Mar 2015 #286
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #288
Logical Mar 2015 #294
hrmjustin Mar 2015 #297
BainsBane Mar 2015 #319
betsuni Mar 2015 #360
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #426
BainsBane Mar 2015 #430
OnyxCollie Mar 2015 #310
cui bono Mar 2015 #383
OnyxCollie Mar 2015 #408
cui bono Mar 2015 #431
leftofcool Mar 2015 #4
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #11
Andy823 Mar 2015 #142
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #158
think Mar 2015 #12
joshdawg Mar 2015 #25
think Mar 2015 #29
HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #165
Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #339
HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #341
uponit7771 Mar 2015 #213
rhett o rick Mar 2015 #77
Scuba Mar 2015 #7
L0oniX Mar 2015 #336
tularetom Mar 2015 #8
marym625 Mar 2015 #39
rhett o rick Mar 2015 #103
tularetom Mar 2015 #122
ReRe Mar 2015 #124
rhett o rick Mar 2015 #129
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #223
ReRe Mar 2015 #266
99Forever Mar 2015 #17
Mnpaul Mar 2015 #134
bread_and_roses Mar 2015 #391
JaneyVee Mar 2015 #18
woo me with science Mar 2015 #293
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #20
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #23
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #115
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #229
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #206
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #230
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #234
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #235
SHRED Mar 2015 #21
FBaggins Mar 2015 #75
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #22
marym625 Mar 2015 #26
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #30
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #37
marym625 Mar 2015 #41
tularetom Mar 2015 #135
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #146
Enthusiast Mar 2015 #24
OKNancy Mar 2015 #28
marym625 Mar 2015 #45
roody Mar 2015 #57
marym625 Mar 2015 #62
Enthusiast Mar 2015 #394
marym625 Mar 2015 #395
Enthusiast Mar 2015 #396
marym625 Mar 2015 #397
BubbaFett Mar 2015 #69
OKNancy Mar 2015 #72
BubbaFett Mar 2015 #81
OKNancy Mar 2015 #87
Mnpaul Mar 2015 #166
Logical Mar 2015 #240
cui bono Mar 2015 #384
TreasonousBastard Mar 2015 #31
BubbaFett Mar 2015 #40
TreasonousBastard Mar 2015 #52
Post removed Mar 2015 #56
TreasonousBastard Mar 2015 #60
BubbaFett Mar 2015 #61
Mnpaul Mar 2015 #154
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #109
Post removed Mar 2015 #95
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #104
TreasonousBastard Mar 2015 #218
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #221
Efilroft Sul Mar 2015 #236
ReRe Mar 2015 #145
Martin Eden Mar 2015 #290
SidDithers Mar 2015 #51
TreasonousBastard Mar 2015 #53
BubbaFett Mar 2015 #65
TreasonousBastard Mar 2015 #220
Number23 Mar 2015 #270
TreasonousBastard Mar 2015 #373
840high Mar 2015 #111
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #32
BubbaFett Mar 2015 #38
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #46
BubbaFett Mar 2015 #48
BeanMusical Mar 2015 #379
BubbaFett Mar 2015 #35
world wide wally Mar 2015 #36
MyNameGoesHere Mar 2015 #44
Cryptoad Mar 2015 #47
OKNancy Mar 2015 #67
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #141
Cryptoad Mar 2015 #167
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #170
LittleBlue Mar 2015 #199
JoePhilly Mar 2015 #49
Alkene Mar 2015 #54
neverforget Mar 2015 #55
BubbaFett Mar 2015 #70
roody Mar 2015 #58
Kip Humphrey Mar 2015 #88
Atman Mar 2015 #64
BubbaFett Mar 2015 #66
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #121
KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #362
Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #71
think Mar 2015 #78
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #191
druidity33 Mar 2015 #405
F4lconF16 Mar 2015 #102
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #188
KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #363
think Mar 2015 #76
MineralMan Mar 2015 #80
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #99
MineralMan Mar 2015 #140
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #149
MineralMan Mar 2015 #157
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #272
marym625 Mar 2015 #194
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #351
marym625 Mar 2015 #354
Rex Mar 2015 #91
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #98
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #101
aikoaiko Mar 2015 #105
Hissyspit Mar 2015 #263
msanthrope Mar 2015 #264
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #112
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #116
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #120
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #125
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #127
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #130
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #144
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #151
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #181
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #197
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #205
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #208
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #227
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #232
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #233
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #237
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #239
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #242
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #246
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #250
Doctor_J Mar 2015 #253
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #254
Doctor_J Mar 2015 #256
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #257
Doctor_J Mar 2015 #311
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #312
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #209
Hissyspit Mar 2015 #262
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #265
Hissyspit Mar 2015 #269
Martin Eden Mar 2015 #296
rhett o rick Mar 2015 #309
Lancero Mar 2015 #331
stevenleser Mar 2015 #462
aikoaiko Mar 2015 #107
Martin Eden Mar 2015 #301
KMOD Mar 2015 #108
MisterP Mar 2015 #169
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #110
libodem Mar 2015 #113
PedXing Mar 2015 #114
Autumn Mar 2015 #153
PedXing Mar 2015 #386
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #117
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2015 #118
Hoyt Mar 2015 #283
Rex Mar 2015 #119
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #123
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #136
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #160
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #163
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #173
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #175
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #182
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #198
Autumn Mar 2015 #204
still_one Mar 2015 #133
Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #147
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #156
still_one Mar 2015 #168
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #176
still_one Mar 2015 #200
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #201
KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #368
stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #164
Number23 Mar 2015 #274
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #278
Post removed Mar 2015 #281
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #282
treestar Mar 2015 #183
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #186
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #193
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #196
Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #203
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #287
leftofcool Mar 2015 #307
Number23 Mar 2015 #275
emulatorloo Mar 2015 #304
one_voice Mar 2015 #325
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #353
zappaman Mar 2015 #359
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #361
marym625 Mar 2015 #364
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #370
marym625 Mar 2015 #371
sheshe2 Mar 2015 #443
sheshe2 Mar 2015 #442
pansypoo53219 Mar 2015 #187
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #189
pansypoo53219 Mar 2015 #195
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #212
think Mar 2015 #215
neverforget Mar 2015 #261
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #268
neverforget Mar 2015 #271
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #273
neverforget Mar 2015 #284
1StrongBlackMan Mar 2015 #404
dflprincess Mar 2015 #333
think Mar 2015 #202
Rex Mar 2015 #324
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #225
Logical Mar 2015 #244
Martin Eden Mar 2015 #303
DeSwiss Mar 2015 #222
Corruption Inc Mar 2015 #224
Efilroft Sul Mar 2015 #248
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #245
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #258
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #260
OilemFirchen Mar 2015 #313
Post removed Mar 2015 #314
OilemFirchen Mar 2015 #320
Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #347
sheshe2 Mar 2015 #365
NutmegYankee Mar 2015 #409
sheshe2 Mar 2015 #424
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #259
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #249
n2doc Mar 2015 #277
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #285
Martin Eden Mar 2015 #302
great white snark Mar 2015 #280
Fumesucker Mar 2015 #299
colsohlibgal Mar 2015 #289
blkmusclmachine Mar 2015 #295
Post removed Mar 2015 #306
leftofcool Mar 2015 #308
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #315
betsuni Mar 2015 #316
wyldwolf Mar 2015 #317
Autumn Mar 2015 #327
msanthrope Mar 2015 #446
Autumn Mar 2015 #447
msanthrope Mar 2015 #448
Autumn Mar 2015 #449
msanthrope Mar 2015 #450
Autumn Mar 2015 #451
msanthrope Mar 2015 #454
Autumn Mar 2015 #456
msanthrope Mar 2015 #457
Autumn Mar 2015 #458
msanthrope Mar 2015 #460
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #349
betsuni Mar 2015 #352
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #356
betsuni Mar 2015 #372
leftofcool Mar 2015 #330
Bobbie Jo Mar 2015 #344
msanthrope Mar 2015 #455
Bobbie Jo Mar 2015 #459
msanthrope Mar 2015 #461
SidDithers Mar 2015 #321
sheshe2 Mar 2015 #355
BainsBane Mar 2015 #323
Maedhros Mar 2015 #329
BainsBane Mar 2015 #340
Maedhros Mar 2015 #374
BainsBane Mar 2015 #429
Maedhros Mar 2015 #436
leftofcool Mar 2015 #342
BainsBane Mar 2015 #348
Marr Mar 2015 #358
BainsBane Mar 2015 #366
MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #369
L0oniX Mar 2015 #338
marym625 Mar 2015 #376
BeanMusical Mar 2015 #377
stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #393
L0oniX Mar 2015 #407
stonecutter357 Mar 2015 #411
Octafish Mar 2015 #403
totodeinhere Mar 2015 #346
JDPriestly Mar 2015 #357
Rex Mar 2015 #367
greenman3610 Mar 2015 #399
Octafish Mar 2015 #402
Jeff Rosenzweig Mar 2015 #412
pintobean Mar 2015 #415
m-lekktor Mar 2015 #416
pintobean Mar 2015 #417
m-lekktor Mar 2015 #418
pintobean Mar 2015 #423
Rex Mar 2015 #425
m-lekktor Mar 2015 #427
Rex Mar 2015 #428
QC Mar 2015 #437
Township75 Mar 2015 #419
Rex Mar 2015 #434
Blue_Tires Mar 2015 #439
One of the 99 Mar 2015 #452
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #453

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:12 AM

1. Because there isn't

I don't know what happened to our party but it is no longer either liberal or progressive.

K&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:26 PM

137. WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam Wars were all declared under Democratic presidents :(

The sad reality is that if it's under a Democratic president, War doesn't seem to matter too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BP2 (Reply #137)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:41 PM

162. Why was that?

 

Was it due to Republican policy failures?

Not every country wants a corporate takeover overseen by the US of A!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #162)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 02:07 PM

192. No, Republican policy failures did not cause any one of those wars.

Neither did Democratic policy failures cause any of those wars except possibly Vietnam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #162)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 03:28 PM

216. Vietnam certainly was.

 

Read "The Brothers" by Stephen Kinzer - a dual biography of Allen and John Foster Dulles, CIA director and Sec of State during the Eisenhower administration. Most of why the US government and its foreign policy is so hated around the world to this day is explained by that book.

The Dulles brothers manifested all the very worst qualities of Americans - inability to understand or even consider complexity, a truly nauseating missionary Calvinism, a belief that American big business should be able to do whatever it wants to whomever it wants anywhere in the world, and that rich, white "Christian" men should run the world. These values, which they built into the instruments of foreign policy, still dominate today.

One of the most enlightening books I have ever read. Well written and a good read, to boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #216)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:30 PM

345. The Dulles brothers are singularly obnoxious, but one can also point a finger at

 

Zbigniew Brzezinski with his Russo-phobic 'Asia Pivot' nonsense and at Madeleine Albright with her Churchillian willingness to see Arab children sacrificed on the altar of pax Americana imperial might-makes-right realpolitik. Only 500,000 Iraqi children died during the 90s from entirely preventable diseases like dysentery so, hey, it was 'worth it.'

N.B. Had the same proportion of American children died from preventable diseases thanks to sanctions instituted and maintained by a U.N. acting at the behest of Iraq, we'd be looking at, conservatively, some 3-4 million American infant and child deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #345)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 04:14 PM

420. Good post, thank you. The only thing we can hope for is that the US is going through a very

dark period, and sooner rather than later, it will end. It will probably be called our 'Imperial period' and we are being egged on by some of the previous fading or faded Empires of Europe, using our strong military to fight more Imperial Wars. Some habits never die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BP2 (Reply #137)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:00 PM

171. World Wars I and II were..........

wars declared by Congress.

The Korean War was a Military engagement authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by Congress. The Vietnam War was not a declared war, but an action authorized by Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Reply #171)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 02:05 PM

190. Which means what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #190)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 03:37 PM

217. Oh yes they were wars........

but not declared as wars by Congress. The Korean War is historically seen as a "Police Action". it was the first time that the US aligned with the United Nations and sent Forces to join with the other countries in fighting against North Korea. My Dad fought in Korea and he met Turkish, English and French Forces while fighting.

As for Vietnam, again it was not a declared War. Congress supplied money for Forces to fight against North Vietnam aligning thinking and philosopy with the Truman Doctrine and the "Domino Theory."

In not declaring War in these 2 instances, Congress was able to not anger the Soviet Union and China who were allied with the North Koreans and North Vietnames.

I think the belief was that if the US declared War, the Soviets and Chinese would see it as an affront to them and would have sent forces to fight against the US. However my Dad did see the Chinese fighting in Korea at the Chosin Reservoir.

edited for spelling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Reply #217)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:02 PM

226. The Chinese sent 700,000 troops into the war.

Last edited Sun Mar 8, 2015, 12:41 AM - Edit history (1)

The Soviets provided some military support but no troops. The only reason the Chinese did not take the whole country is their air support was not up to ours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #226)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:30 PM

231. My Dad told me.........

that at Chosin Reservoir he met up with 250,000 Chinese Troops. They attacked at night. The temperature during this battle was about -30 F. The Chinese my Dad said wore light weight pajama style uniforms & canvas shoes. They attacked with clubs, very few had firearms. The Americans would hear the Chinese begin to howl and scream and that's when the Americans knew an attack was coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrmpa (Reply #231)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:52 PM

267. Yes, an almost forgotten war.

Fought by brave troops under horrid conditions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to mrmpa (Reply #171)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:01 PM

337. Good point.

The fact is we had to participate in both of the World Wars, and to a degree, in the Korean War because of the UN.
But, the Vietnam War was definitely not a necessary war, or a war we fought to protect our freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #337)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 05:26 AM

389. The UN didn't exist at the start of either World War.

 

World War II was probably unavoidable due to the complete failure of the "winners" of World War I to handle the postwar situation with any degree of competence(Britain and France are largely responsible for Hitler coming to power in Germany because of the insanely punitive conditions the imposed on post-World War I Germany(they punished an emerging democratic government for the crimes of its imperial predecessor), but the U.S. never had to get into World War I. In fact, there was no good reason for World War I even to have been fought, because it didn't really matter which feather-helmeted German emperor defeated his German imperial cousins(at this point, all the decaying royal houses of Europe were part of the same basically German family-even the Battenbergs, er I mean the Mountbatten-Windsors).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #389)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:17 PM

414. Read that again, Ken.

I was referring to the Korean War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #414)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 04:22 PM

421. Here's the way you phrased it:

 

"The fact is we had to participate in both of the World Wars, and to a degree, in the Korean War because of the UN."
The way the sentence was constructed makes it sound as if you were ascribing our participation in all three wars to the UN.

In any case, we never had to participate in World War I, and there was no good reason to have World War I. It was about nothing but corporate greed and imperial arrogance on all sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BP2 (Reply #137)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 06:17 PM

279. I would have supported the first three wars in a NY minute

And the U S fought in the Korean Conflict under a U N flag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BP2 (Reply #137)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:25 PM

322. After Pearl Harbor, FDR didn't have a lot of choice in asking Congress for a declaration of war

against Japan.

He had to go back to Congress a few days later (I think it was the 12th) to ask for another declaration of war against Germany - but that didn't happen until after Germany declared war on the U.S. Again, not a lot of choice in the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BP2 (Reply #137)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:23 PM

343. Technical note: Eisenhower sent the first U.S. military advisors to Vietnam in the 50s, following

 

French defeat at Dien Bien Phu and the resultant Geneva Treaty (which our puppets in the South had no intention of honoring). War was never 'declared' in Vietnam nor, for that matter, in Korea, which was a U.N. police action authorized by the Security Council after the Soviets walked out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #343)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 04:52 AM

388. Bingo! The first US deaths in Vietnam were under Eisenhower.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #388)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 09:31 AM

401. Not to be unduly persnickety, but the very first U.S. death in Viet Nam came

 

while Truman was in office, IIRC. The casualty was an OSS officer killed while serving for the U.S. against the Imperial Japanese before their surrender in World War II. (In a huge twist of irony, the OSS, predecessor to the CIA, had made common cause with Ho Chi MInh's Viet Minh against the Japanese. The Viet Minh rescued and spirited to safety many U.S. OSS pilots shot down by the Japanese over Vietnam during World War II.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #401)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:16 PM

413. Ho Chi Minh, who had once washed dishes on Staten Island,

tried to get a copy of our Constitution from the Americans to use as a template for the one he intended to write for all of Vietnam.

There was no strategic or tactical need for the war. All we would have had to do in the 1954-56 era was to guarantee Ho protection from the mainland Chinese, open trade, and send a little aid to rebuild the country after all its years of war with the French, the Japanese, and then the French again. The French had been horrible colonial masters.

Instead, we sabotaged the reunification elections that were to be held in 1956 and backed the remains of the old, corrupt French puppet regime in the south. Because Ho called himself a Communist and allied himself with Russia.

Look at it from Ho's point of view for a moment. His country had been under the brutal heel of the French since 1880. However, the traditional enemies of Vietnam were the Chinese, who had intermittently ruled them for centuries. (The Cho Lon district of Saigon is the Chinese district, a remnant of that era).

At the beginning of WWII, in 1940, the French pulled out so that the Japanese could move in without a battle (These dates are from memory; may not be exact). Ho fought the Japanese with American military assistance.

Then, at the end of the war, the Japanese moved out and the French moved back in. This time, though, the French had a more formidable opponent in the Viet Minh, who were now far better armed with their new American weaponry.

After the war, though, the Americans sided with their old European allies, the French, and cut off resupply to the Vietnamese.

Ho needed foreign military assistance. Obviously we weren't going to give it to him, and he really didn't want to deal with the Chinese because he feared that to do so would be tantamount to invite them back in as rulers. So what could he do? At that time there was a deepening political split between China and Russia--and Russia was a lot further away than China. The Russians were thus happy to supply Ho with weapons, because with this one action they could push a thorn into the sides of both China and the US.

So in 1954 Ho wore the French down at the siege of Dien Bien Phu, where the French Foreign Legion finally gave it up, the French pulled out, and the country was divided into north and south, leaving behind the puppet Diem government to rule in the south and a plan to re-unify the country in a 1956 election.

With the 1956 elections suspended (mostly at the demand of the Americans), Ho continued to fight for the freedom of his country against the Diem regime and, when he got close to toppling Diem, the Americans responded with their buildup of support troops for Diem, and our slow slide into involvement in the war.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #413)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:23 AM

435. In '45, when he addressed the masses in Hanoi following the Viet Minh's

 

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 09:29 AM - Edit history (1)

successful occupation of the city (before the French temporarily resumed control), Ho Chi Minh had the absolute temerity to quote from the U.S. Declaration of Independence. The cheek of that comrade, I tell you!

One thing that absolutely infuriates me (having missed out on Vietnam by about 10 years) is that the American people let Bush get away with Iraq-nam, including the transparent lies used to sell the war, analogues to the lies about the Tonkin Gulf, including our taking sides in another country's civil war(s). And including our razing of the city of Fallujah in Anbar, analogue to Hue ca. 1968.

As Dylan said, a hard rain's a gonna fall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #435)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 08:58 AM

438. I saw Hue in March 1968, less than 2 months after Tet.

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Rubble with bullet holes.

Oh--and just for the record, I don't remember seeing Bill O'Reilly there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #438)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 09:40 AM

440. I think you meant to write "I saw Hue in March 1968 . . . ," based on

 

your description.

This may come as small consolation now, but this term I have two Vietnamese students, one from Quang Ngai City and the other from Ho Chi Minh City (pka "Saigon". Both students are far younger than I but neither seems to bear the U.S. or its military any ill will. (I brought my copy of Karnow's Vietnam to class to clarify exactly where each student lived on one of the maps and I think each was touched that I actually knew something about his country.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #440)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 11:54 AM

441. Thanks. Yes, I meant Hue.

My brigade of the 1st Cav was moved from Qui Nhon to the DMZ after Tet, & went via (Japanese-flagged, unarmed) LSTs to Da Nang & then convoyed through Hue on our way to Camp Evans, where we staged to go in & dig the Marines out of Khe Sanh, where the NVA had had them under siege since Tet.

And I still say I didn't see O'Reilly there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BP2 (Reply #137)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:24 AM

378. Were they based on lies put forth by the administration?

Were they waged against innocent countries who had nothing to do with an attack on our soil?

Clinton voted for a war when she knew damn well the evidence was fabricated. We all knew it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BP2 (Reply #137)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 04:40 AM

387. WWII

Was the only justifiable war, IMHO, that we should have been in. Vietnam was another war we were in that was based on lies.

The Korean War was us joining with the UN. Still, a mistake in my opinion.

I have never said we were the be all and end all. In modern times, if you're going to count wars, let's not forget all the wars we started while staying behind the scenes. Those came under Republicans. And the only time we started a war, actually started a war, went in bombing people that were no threat to us and no current war existed, was Iraq. In WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, there were wars in progress. In Iraq, we just decided to fuck them up so money could be made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:56 PM

332. Didn't you get the pragmatic message? We have to kiss 1% ass to get campaign funding.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #332)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:58 PM

334. I got the message

I just prefer kissing elsewhere. Ass, not my thing.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:33 AM

381. "Money doesn't talk it screams", B.Dylan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drynberg (Reply #381)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:59 AM

385. my absolute favorite song. ever.

It's alright ma, I'm only bleeding

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:15 AM

2. It's not a gray area for me.

Neither are trade and labor issues, social security, or public education, among others.

But I see people calling themselves progressive Democrats supporting neo-liberal policies in these areas as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:21 AM

9. DU Rec^

Its incredibly disappointing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:35 AM

19. I feel like we're in some

Lala land. So much is such, unbelievable, denial of reality that I sometimes think they're not here as Democrats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:44 AM

27. "neo-liberal policies": Did I miss the invention of this phrase during my absence?

 

I clearly didn't miss much...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #27)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:19 AM

63. I apparently missed your absence, lol.

It's a well-established term, "invented," I believe, by Alexander Rustow in the 1930s.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #63)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:25 AM

68. neo-liberalism started 85 years ago? I love oxymorons.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #68)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:39 AM

83. why the snark? the other poster is correct and i see no point to your posts

 

Originally neoliberalism was an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s attempting to trace a so-called ‘Third’ or ‘Middle Way’ between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and collectivist central planning.[9] The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term neoliberal tended to refer to theories at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[7] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused directly into the English-language study of political economy.[7]

Neoliberalism also represents a set of ideas that are famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #83)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:29 PM

143. Why the snark? Did you read what you posted?

 

Calling some (or their outlook) "neo-liberal" is hardly a compliment, but it's also a ridiculously dated insult. Or am I guilty of being a ne'er-do-well?

My "snark" comes from the neverending quest by a certain segment of DUers that continually attempt to separate themselves from others by classifying themselves as a liberal/progressive purist and putting everyone else in some other box: DLC, DINO, neo-lib, whatever. It's really stupid and pointless, and I owe no one an apology for running that ca-ca straight back in the face of the people trying to be so divisive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #143)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:32 PM

150. if that is your criticism, it would have been clearer to address it directly rather than question

 

the history of the term "neoliberal".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #150)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:35 PM

155. For the love of God

 

Give it up. No, I'll let you have the last word. What the fuck ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #155)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:34 PM

326. You're exceptionally abrasive.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #155)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:29 AM

380. Why stop now? You're doing such a good job of not being "divisive".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #143)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 11:41 PM

444. What do you mean by 'separating themselves' it's a MAJORITY of DUers not a 'certain segment'

Why do you have a problem with Democrats being proud of the policies they have traditionally supported, and POINTING OUT those who do NOT support those policies?

That is what this forum is for. It is for Democrats to work towards getting Democrats and Democratic policies which happen to extremely popular across the political spectrum, into power in order to make this a better country. So what are you so upset about? Do you disagree with Democratic policies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #444)

Tue Mar 10, 2015, 07:03 AM

445. A lot of DUers spend a lot of time trying to categorize others as impure.

 

I find it divisive and ridiculous. Take pride in the the traditional policies? Sure. Demean those who do not embrace all of them? Despicable.

That is what this forum is for.


Okay. No problem. But, this forum is also for people like me who disagree strongly and are willing to say so.

So what are you so upset about? Do you disagree with Democratic policies?


As I was saying...anyone who disagrees has their loyalty challenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #68)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:18 PM

126. It's been around for decades.

 

You should try to hold back your mockery until you have at least some vague idea of what it is that you're mocking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #126)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:22 PM

131. "until you have at least some vague idea of what it is that you're mocking."

 

Good advice for yourself. It was illustrate quite clearly when this was established well before you posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #68)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 04:24 PM

422. Just use 'Third Way', it's more 'modern'. And if you need any information on who they are and

their policies, I'll be happy to provide it. Sadly they have grabbed power within our Party over the course of a few decades, first known as the DLC, and when they became too unpopular with Voters changed their title to the Third Way. Like 'halfway between Republicans and Democrats. Only it's more like three quarter Republican, and what's left over could be called Democratic, re policies.

And that is what is dividing the Dem Party right now.

Eg, they supported the Iraq War. Which is the topic of this thread, and so did the candidates they fund.

Their Board of Directors is made up of Wall St Investment Bankers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #63)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:38 AM

79. Did you miss much?

"I apparently missed your absence"

I didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #79)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:19 PM

128. No.

I just missed noticing the absence, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #79)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:23 PM

132. Yeah, shit.

 

I cleared my Ignore list when I came back.

It might be time to put you back on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #132)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:09 PM

177. I'd like to be on that list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrotherIvan (Reply #177)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:34 PM

180. I'm not sure you understand how it works.

 

Take a second to think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #180)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 03:45 PM

219. How your ignore works?

Put me on the goddamn list! Is that how you do it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #27)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 02:57 PM

207. you've never heard of the term neo liberal before?

 

How many decades was your absence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:33 AM

74. +100 these days, "progressive" = support for individual rights (gay/black/hispanic/women) and

 

that's about it.

progressives divide themselves into little individualistic "rights" groups that can be set against each other to fight for scraps while the "captains" take more and more of the pie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #74)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 09:03 AM

398. I suspect that PoC, women, and the LGBT community ...

 

would say ... on DU you have that exactly backwards.

The DU "progressive" is about the 1% and nothing else ... the DU "Progressive" ignores the fight for collective class rights in favor of individual income equality ... And the DU "progressive" likes to pretend that their income inequality juggernaut is a unifying as they ignore the concerns of PoC, women and the LGBT community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #398)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:33 AM

406. There is no income inequality juggernaut. And few people at DU talk about class in the economic

 

sense at all.

Look at what's on the front page of gd today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to LWolf (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:27 PM

138. But they -DO- support those issues... nonsupport is "limited" and ALWAYS pragmatic

Social issues are fine if they aren't directly related to money or power

Say serving in the military while LGBT, or walking in public while non-white, there is LOTS!!! of support. There's lots of support for FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, if you're Charlie Hebdo, and not part of democratic base complaining about the pursuit of campaign funds corrupting democracy.

If you look at it, it's a simple well defined problem...support of progressive ideas goes hinky when things like LABOR/UNIONS interfere with -IMPORTANT THINGS FOR MATURE ADULTS-things like PROFITS from selling imported stuff, and getting retirement funds to buy worthless bets on bets about overly risky mortgages.

And it -REALLY-insults them when they see us fail to acknowledge the goodness of their intent, in how they worked to deregulate banking in order to solve the housing problem by making available predatory loans



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #138)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:08 PM

318. Walter Benn Michaels has their number:

 

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/01/let-them-eat-diversity/

(emphasis added)

Walter Benn Michaels: The differentiation between left and right neoliberalism doesn’t really undermine the way it which it is deeply unified in its commitment to competitive markets and to the state’s role in maintaining competitive markets. For me the distinction is that “left neoliberals” are people who don’t understand themselves as neoliberals. They think that their commitments to anti-racism, to anti-sexism, to anti-homophobia constitute a critique of neoliberalism. But if you look at the history of the idea of neoliberalism you can see fairly quickly that neoliberalism arises as a kind of commitment precisely to those things....

...Stalin famously won the argument but lost the war over whether there could be socialism in one country, but no one has ever been under the impression for more than a millisecond that there could be neoliberalism in only one country. An easy way to look at this would be to say that the conditions of mobility of labor and mobility of capital have since World War II required an extraordinary upsurge in immigration. The foreign born population in the U.S today is something like 38 million people, which is roughly equivalent to the entire population of Poland. This is a function of matching the mobility of capital with the mobility of labor, and when you begin to produce these massive multi-racial or multi-national or as we would call them today multi-cultural workforces, you obviously need technologies to manage these work forces.

In the U.S. this all began in a kind of powerful way with the Immigration Act of 1965, which in effect repudiated the explicit racism of the Immigration Act of the 1924 and replaced it with largely neoliberal criteria. Before, whether you could come to the U.S. was based almost entirely on racial or, to use the then-preferred term, “national” criteria. I believe that, for example, the quota on Indian immigration to the U.S. in 1925 was 100. I don’t know the figure on Indian immigration to the U.S. since 1965 off-hand, but 100 is probably about an hour and a half of that in a given year. The anti-racism that involves is obviously a good thing, but it was enacted above all to admit people who benefited the economy of the U.S. They are often sort of high-end labor, doctors, lawyers, and businessmen of various kinds. The Asian immigration of the 70s and 80s involved a high proportion of people who had upper and upper-middle class status in their countries of origin and who quickly resumed that middle and upper middle class status in the U.S. While at the same time we’ve had this increased immigration from Mexico, people from the lower-end of the economy, filling jobs that otherwise cannot be filled—or at least not filled at the price capital would prefer to pay. So there is a certain sense in which the internationalism intrinsic to the neoliberal process requires a form of anti-racism and indeed neoliberalism has made very good use of the particular form we’ve evolved, multiculturalism, in two ways.

First, there isn’t a single US corporation that doesn’t have an HR office committed to respecting the differences between cultures, to making sure that your culture is respected whether or not your standard of living is. And, second, multiculturalism and diversity more generally are even more effective as a legitimizing tool, because they suggest that the ultimate goal of social justice in a neoliberal economy is not that there should be less difference between the rich and the poor—indeed the rule in neoliberal economies is that the difference between the rich and the poor gets wider rather than shrinks—but that no culture should be treated invidiously and that it’s basically OK if economic differences widen as long as the increasingly successful elites come to look like the increasingly unsuccessful non-elites. So the model of social justice is not that the rich don’t make as much and the poor make more, the model of social justice is that the rich make whatever they make, but an appropriate percentage of them are minorities or women. That’s a long answer to your question, but it is a serious question and the essence of the answer is precisely that internationalization, the new mobility of both capital and labor, has produced a contemporary anti-racism that functions as a legitimization of capital rather than as resistance or even critique.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #318)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:45 PM

328. That's an interesting read...I'm not trained in economics so

I'm not really sure about the application of the neo-liberal label, or really much of the philosophy that label might implies.

I agree with what you say above in as much as within the phrase social-liberal and economic-conservative, I think social-liberal is merely a foil that attempts to deflect well deserved criticism of the social harm inherent in economic-conservatism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #328)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:59 PM

335. I used to live in Wellesley, Massachusetts, a wealthy town

 

Being decidedly working-class myself, I was always amused about how the locals made
a lot of noise about being 'an open and welcoming community'.

Indeed, they were-open and welcoming to *all* rich people, regardless of race, nationality,
or sexual orientation. A white kid from north Natick, or a Brazilian immigrant from Framingham?

Fuggedaboutit...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #335)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:53 PM

350. Checking in here from northern Newton

 

Yeah, Wellesley is a little upper-crusty, like southern Newton, Weston etc. But people *are* really nice, I find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:16 AM

3. I am do not excuse it but I am capable of forgiving that vote.

 

I protested Hillary, Chuck, and Vito Fossela when they voted for that war. I voted for Chuck, Hillary, and Kerry since so I will not hold it against her in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:20 AM

6. I am not going to cry for the man. He was a dictator.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:23 AM

10. Do you know what Libya's turned into since his death?

 

And what it tells the world when we kill a foreign leader after he voluntarily gave up his nuclear weapons program?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:27 AM

15. The people on the ground were rebbelling and we helped them.

 

The fact is the country is falling apart and we share some blame for not trying harder to win the peace but the dictator was not a good man and his people sent him packing. Still not crying for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #15)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:42 AM

86. *which* people on the ground? *why* was the country falling apart? we certainly did a

 

lot to help it in that direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #86)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:46 AM

96. Yes we had a hand in it but the locaks were rising up against their goverment.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #96)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 03:08 PM

211. blanket statement about "the locals" doesn't = "fact"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #211)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 03:23 PM

214. That is fair. We don't exactly know who they all were.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #15)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:27 PM

139. Which 'people on the ground'? The ones who have been terrorizing civilians now for several years?

The ones who were armed by the West and then left to rampage through a country once among the most developed in Africa?

The 'people' who were shipped in from Qatar and the Al Queda contingency in Libay once kept under control by Gadaffi, at our request? Now part of ISIS?

I really wish we had a free and open press with actual journalists in this country.

Maybe some day after the rule of law is restored and the war criminals and propagandists finally held accountable.

Until then, the Rendon Group et al will be the providers of 'news' in this country, sadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #139)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:31 PM

148. Who are the war criminals here?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #148)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:38 PM

159. Yes, who are they? How many civilians were killed by NATO bombs in Libya? Do you know?

I would start with the French who instigated the Libya 'war' and who for months before were plotting the 'protests'. Their interests were the driving force for getting NATO involved, at least initially.

Where are they now that the people of Libya are desperately trying to either get out of that ravaged nation, or in hiding, or being brutalized by those who were 'on our side'?

Doesn't it bother you when you are told you are supporting civilians who are being attacked, then find out that isn't the case?

Are you aware that the Libyan Govt has collapsed, that torture and brutality is now the norm in that nation?

Can you identify the 'protesters' and don't forget the British agents caught in disguise as Libyans btw, who they were, their names, so we can find out were they even all Libyans?

I've been following Libya since the invasion, have you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #159)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:39 PM

161. I am asking you here, who are the war criminals?

 

Please list them if you don't mind?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #161)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:01 PM

172. I am asking YOU who the protesters were? You are supporting what happened in Libya, but don't

appear to know even who the 'protesters' were, the ARMED protesters, I am talking about who were not there in the beginning, btw.

You have not expressed no opinion yet on the claim that they went there to 'protect civilians'.

Did NATO, ARE they protecting civilians?

Decisions on who is the guilty party cannot be made until facts are established.

As of now, those who are murdering civilians are certainly war criminals. Are any arrests being made? Any ATTEMPT to stop them? Human Rights groups are and have been begging for help for Libyans.

Your question demonstrates a level of disingenuousness which indicates to me, you are not interested in actual discussion of the issue, but attempting to play political games.

I am not interested in games, I am interested in facts. I asked you some questions to try to establish what facts you are in possession of.

You don't want to answer, fine. But playing games with the lives of human beings isn't something I have ever been interested in.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #172)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:05 PM

174. I never claimed to support anything. I said I was not going to cry over it.

 

I am not playing games. Perhaps you should read my posts before answering.

I made the statement that there were people on the ground rebbeling. They didn't check in with me who they were.

Oh by the way I think Gaddafi was a criminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #174)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:20 PM

178. I'll do the crying then for the innocent who are being murdered and tortured. You don't have to.

And fyi, we have zero proof that the armed protesters were 'rebelling', zero.

What we do know is that there were often protests, UNARMED protests in Libya just as we have here.

The ARMED protesters who appeared among the not abnormal small groups of unarmed protesters were unknown to the legitimate protesters, many of whom left and went home, frightened by the presence of these outsiders who were so violent they were shocked to see them there.

It doesn't matter what YOU think Gadaffi was. I think Cheney and Bush, Ledeen, Rove et al are worse criminals. The people of Africa, not just his own country, viewed Gadaffi very differently from Westerners like you.

Mandella eg, viewed him as a brother who provided so much help to him during the fight against Apartheid, while OUR Western 'leaders' were FOR Aparthied.

Africa is not our business, we have been imposing our Western cultures, equally criminal and violent, and in fact responsible for leaders like Gadaffi, supporters of him even, when it suited our purposes, for centuries.

I would like to know why THIS country has now replaced the former Western Empires who went around the world brutalizing and occupying continents like Africa and South America and when we are going to stop?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #178)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:24 PM

179. My opinion doesn't have to matter to you but it does for me.

 

And like you give yours I will give mine.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #179)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:49 PM

184. Our Western opinions of African nations, yours or mine, do not matter to African nations. Which was

my point.

Considering the horrific history of Western influence on that Continent, I would think at least this country would have avoided joining the former Colonial Imperialists in their oppression of those countries.

Once free to make their own decisions, amazing how we in the West think that people of color around the globe, cannot possibly know what's good for them without our WMDs helping them to decide, they finally, with help from Libya among others, ended Apartheid in South Africa.

So I have confidence that African nations are as capable of deciding their own futures, utilizing their own resources, as Gadaffi did, for the benefit of their own people, as we supposedly are, though looking around the Western nations lately, that too may be in question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #184)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:52 PM

185. I am all for them making their own choices.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #185)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 06:11 PM

276. It's really none of our business. We have no rights in Africa, we are not in a position to 'allow

them' to do or not to do anything.

And yet, there we were, destroying an African country that had the highest standard of living, thanks to the use of their OWN resources, and now it is the way Colonialists have historically left African nations they decided to 'help'

Look, we know why NATO was there. It was to once again, take control of an African nation's resources.

And when that mission was accomplished, they left the civilians to try to survive against the brutality of the gangs of murderous thugs sent in by NATO and their allies, Qatar, dictators btw, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

Maybe the West just can't stand to see an African nation thriving economically, using their resources for THEIR people.

Whatever the reason, a nation that climbed out of the last mess left by Imperialists, has been put 'back in its place', again by the West.

And best of all, THEY no longer control their own resources. So 'bye 'bye EDUCATION, which was free, including college in other countries in Libya, all the incredible Social Services they had, paid for with their own oil. Homes for the mentally ill, it was a law there that every Libyan had a right to a home.

Well, the West decided to end those 'terrible' policies, paid for with what they clearly think is 'our oil'.

I opposed it, I opposed Apartheid, I opposed Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other 'proxy wars' we wage against people for their resources.

And in the Imperial West, NO ONE is a War Criminal. As we found out after Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:26 AM

14. How about the Iraqi people?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:28 AM

16. The Iraqi people will suffer from that horrible war and that is tragic but I am still voting for

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #16)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:43 AM

90. the price was worth it, eh?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #90)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:47 AM

97. Did I say it was? No.

 

I said I am still voting for Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:35 AM

382. How do you know that already? You don't even know who else is going to be running?

It would be much better if you made up your mind after hearing all the candidate's positions, don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #382)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 09:24 AM

400. My mind is made up and if she runs she has my vote.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #400)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 09:56 PM

432. Hm. I hope you would reconsider having your mind made up already.

You should keep an open mind. You never know what will happen.

Closed minds are dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #432)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:01 PM

433. I will listen to the others but my vote is with Hillary.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:55 AM

42. Funny thing about dictators...

When they are installed by us after the particular coup, we wheel and deal. Not caring is just part of that formula.

What I really don't want to cry for is the people who loose their political and moral compass, who feel no remorse to create or perpetuate this little scheme, which serves neither country from both sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to hrmjustin (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:33 AM

73. So you are saying that getting rid of Saddam was worth the betrayal of Americans

 

by our government? We were lied to and HRC was a big part of that. This wasn't just a minor mistake, it was a mistake that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and also probably brought on the death of the Great American Middle Class.

You act like we don't have any other Democratic choice.

Oh yeah, our use of depleted uranium is the gift that will keep on giving. Ask the Iraqis if it was worth it to get rid of that dictator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #73)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:43 AM

89. Where did I say it was a good idea to get rid of Saddam?

 

Where did I say that? Oh I didn't.

And no I don't act like Democrats don't have any choices. I just advocate for someone who is not your choice and you don't like it.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #73)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:44 AM

93. "also probably brought on the death of the Great American Middle Class" = indeed

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:25 AM

13. Manny I gave her a pass on her IWR vote. I have always liked her laugh. But that?

I saw that and it turned my stomach. I felt sick to see someone I had admired and respected go there. I'm not about to give her a pass on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:03 AM

50. It goes to show us we don't really know them.

All we know and admire about them is a public image that they themselves create.

But my first indication was when Hillary's first action as a Senator was to sponsor a flag burning ammendment...sent up a red flag to me, and was probably designed to show her intent to the right wing that she is with them. And then she proved it with the IWR.

I won't get fooled again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:38 AM

82. thank u

for reminding us of this moment.

it's emblematic of what has creeped me out about her and her husband, and the entire DLC sellout.

they really are gop-lite, and by design and agenda.

the standard caveat, of course i'll vote for her over walker or jeb, but sheez, dammit ~

WE CAN AND REALLY SHOULD DO BETTER!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:18 PM

298. means that she does not belong anywhere near a position of power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:49 AM

33. I think it's up to the victims, those who survived, to forgive, not up to people

who did not lose their daughters, or see them raped and murdered, or their babies, blown to bits or burned to death by WP, or sons maimed for life, or gone by suicide.

Or the 4 million Iraqi refugees still living in refugee camps in Jordan and Syria, now being driven out of Syria also by the terrorists who are destabilizing another ME country.

What I want all those victims to know if possible, is that this may have been done in our name, but many of us condemned it then and still do. And will never condone it.

If Sen. Byrd was able to see what the horrific consequences of such an invasion would be for the Iraqi people, AND for US troops, and if we could foresee it, anyone who didn't does not belong in a position where they might need to be 'forgiven' ever again.

Libya was a nation with one of the highest standards of living in Africa before 'we came, saw and he died'.

Now it is a tragic, brutal, wasteland, with brutal criminal, marauding gangs roaming the country, murdering, robbing and torturing civilians.

The people who are angry at Gadaffi were the Al Queda terrorists who WE asked him to contain.

He was fine until he decided to change Libya's oil currency in order to benefit Africa, especially Libya, and when he decided to create an African NATO to try to prevent Imperial Colonialism after centuries of brutal domination by various Western Empires, from happening again.

As for Hillary's hinting we had something to do with the war crime that was Gadaffi's death, Madella and especially Bishop Tutu were shocked and 'saddened' by that statement about someone who THEY viewed as a 'brother'.

What is NATO doing now about those civilians they claimed to care so much about btw?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #33)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:50 AM

34. I lost my cousin in the war so I have standing to forgive thank you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #34)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:41 AM

85. I am sorry for the death of your cousin. And even if everyone were to forgive those responsible for

the most horrific crimes committed against a nation that was no threat to us, it would not alter the fact that those who made that terrible decision have no place in positions where they could make such a terrible decision ever again.

Some Iraqis have forgiven this country also. Many more are still seeking some kind of legal justice through the courts. And more are joining violent groups to take revenge for the injustices they witnessed.

More consequences of one of the worst decisions made by elected officials in recent history.

Regardless of all that, WE in the US do not have the standing to forgive those responsible for that massive crime, on behalf of the Iraqi people whose lives were shattered by our WMDS.

Forgiveness isn't the issue, the terrible, fateful decision proving a lack of competence of mammoth proportions, is the main reason issue.

We need people who make the right decisions at the right time and who won't need any forgiveness after it is too late.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #85)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:44 AM

92. Thats your opinion and it is principled but I think we do have standing to forgive.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #34)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:03 PM

291. What do you mean when you say you "have standing to forgive"?

Do you mean your reaction somehow has more authority than others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sammythecat (Reply #291)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:05 PM

292. No. I was making a point to the poster who said only the victims of the war have standing to forgive

 

My point was that I lost someone so I personally feel I do have standing. I also think everyone has this standing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #292)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:23 PM

300. Thanks for clarifying. I agree with what you just said. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #33)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:16 AM

59. +1

A little reality check is what your post is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:40 AM

84. I don't see it as a matter of forgiveness.

It's more a matter of an awareness that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #84)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:45 AM

94. It is perfectly reasonable to question her vote.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #84)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 07:27 AM

390. "best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."

And so this applies to Elizabeth Warren the former Republican?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #390)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 12:39 PM

410. Certainly.

Of course the predictive value of a behavior, in most predictive models, declines as a function of the square of its distance in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:03 PM

238. Of course you will not. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #238)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:04 PM

241. No I won't hold it against her. My right. n/t.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #241)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:06 PM

243. And my right to think you are a hypocrite. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #243)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:08 PM

247. Please explain how I am a hypocrite.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #247)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:12 PM

251. Like you said "It's my right". nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #251)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:14 PM

252. Can you back it up or are you just here to call me names?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #251)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:31 PM

255. Well are you going to back it up?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #255)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 06:49 PM

286. "It my right" is all I heard from you. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #286)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 06:57 PM

288. I always respected your opinion here.

 

I didn't always agree but I always appreciated your ability to hold your own and give a great argument.

Recently you have not cared for my support of Hillary and that has put us at odds. That is fine because I get along with many people who don't like her.

I may or may not be a hypocrite. I am just a mere mortal and I make mistakes but i will be made a fool of.

Since you refuse to back up your claim and appear to be playing games with me I feel that conversation with you is not fruitful for me. I believe it is time for me to use the ignore function I am sorry to say. I will wait for your response of course and respond to you today if I feel the need. I owe you that. But our time talking together is at an end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #288)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:09 PM

294. OK, I am wrong here.......

 

I don't get the total forgiveness of votes for the war. And reacted wrong to your being OK with it. But many others are also.

I apologize for my reaction.

I have said many times, I will fight hard to make sure Hillary is not the nominee. But if she is, I will vote for her. I will not donate to her or work for her but will vote for her.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #294)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:14 PM

297. Accepted and I think she will have to answer for her vote.

 

My willing to forgive basically came from the fact I voted for Kerry and I feel I can not hold it against her since I voted for her three times since the war vote. The vote is not forgotten but I don't feel I personally hold it against her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #251)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:18 PM

319. It is not your right to insult other members

and why you think your opinion of another member relevant to anyone but yourself, I have no idea. There is a congress full of people who voted for that war, including I suspect the presidential candidate you voted for in 2004. Yet the only person you people ever mention that vote about is Hillary Clinton. Talk about hypocrisy. I have never before seen people on this site carry so much hatred for a public figure, and that includes Bush. That has next to nothing to do with Clinton herself because the very concerns you raise are common to the Democratic party and our political system as a whole. And then you have the nerve to call Justin a hypocrite because he doesn't fall in lock step with the group think. As offensive as you may find it that people are allowed to think and vote it ways that you don't control, that is the nature of our society. If you had an actual argument to make, you would do so instead of relying on insults. You don't like one member of the political elite that Justin happens to like. So fucking what? Deal with it. If you gave even the slightest shit about any policy issue, you would focus on changing that rather than making Democratic voters the enemy. If you understood anything about the nature of the problems facing this country, you wouldn't fool yourself into believing it's all about a single individual. I cannot begin to understand how it's possible to cultivate so much anger over something that amounts to so little.

I bet seven years ago the conversations were very similar. You all thought everything depended on defeating Clinton. How did that work out for you? Did capitalism suddenly evaporate because you succeeded in keeping the evil woman from office? Did war disappear from the place of the planet? Have you all learned nothing over these past seven years? How can you continue to delude yourself into thinking it's all about what personality occupies the White House? Do you all do this every election, vest all your fears and hopes into specific individuals, while the system remains the same and even gets worse? At what point are you going to figure out you are focusing on the symptom rather than the cause? The MIC or the relationship between capital and the state doesn't rise or fall based on a single member of the political elite. You all are trapped in a perpetual cycle of Groundhog day, and you show no desire to get out. Instead, you continue to hope for a political messiah that will magically transform America, and in the process insult everyone who doesn't share your particular view of one individual. And I expect in a few minutes you will insult me for not sharing your delusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #319)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:19 PM

360. +very large number

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #319)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 06:02 PM

426. Who are 'you people'. I want to know if I am one of them so I can correct that statement IF I am one

of that group of 'you people'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #426)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 07:32 PM

430. There is no question in my mind that you are a unique individual.

but certainly you are among the forefront of posters who has been leading a campaign against Clinton for years now. In your particular case, that juxtaposes with your admiration for Vladmir Putin and his popularity, something that results from the "strength" he has shown in rebuilding the great Russian empire.

It is of course your right to hold any opinion you choose, as it is my right to disagree with most of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 08:34 PM

310. Will you forgive an attack on Iran?

 

Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/22/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422

On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.


As an aside, I just noticed that the title of this article says "could 'totally obliterate'" when the actual quote is "would 'totally obliterate'"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #310)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:43 AM

383. To further your "aside"... it actually says "would *be able to* totally obliterate them, not

"would totally obliterate them". So to be fair, she didn't say we necessarily would do it, but that we are capable of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #383)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 11:20 AM

408. Thanks.

 

It was a long day yesterday and the lack of sleep had caught up to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #408)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 09:54 PM

431. That's okay. I do resent the fact that you made me defend Hillary though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to leftofcool (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:24 AM

11. Not in the primary. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:28 PM

142. What about in the general election

Did you vote for Kerry instead of Bush?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to leftofcool (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:25 AM

12. And if one didn't vote for Kerry then they SUPPORTED BUSH! No matter how one voted

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:43 AM

25. ^^^Yes, this!^^^

If one does not vote for the Democratic nominee, the republican wins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshdawg (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:47 AM

29. And if one did vote for Kerry obviously they were hypocrites that supported the war.

 

Again the person voted wrong.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #29)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:44 PM

165. lots of us were against Kerry before we were for him, before we were against him

it's just the nature of politics to be 'adaptable'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #165)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:08 PM

339. Ha ha ha!

No wonder you guys were referred to as "flip-floppers" by the Deaniacs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #339)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:16 PM

341. But I -was- a Dean supporter...but now I'm not

Many things are possible in the ebb and flow...of perception of who supports labor and consumers.

So many seem to support labor and consumers...yet can't consistently stay the course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to leftofcool (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:35 AM

77. Is that your argument / rational for voting for HRC? We can do better than

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:20 AM

7. I just can't rec this post enough.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:00 PM

336. Let me help out with another K & R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:20 AM

8. It was neither staggering stupidity nor staggering malevolence

It was in fact, staggering political cowardice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:54 AM

39. Isn't that the same thing?

Staggeringly stupid to be a political coward. It's what got us bush in the first place. Well, that and cheating the American public

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:53 AM

103. I seriously disagree. HRC is not a coward.

 

The cowards were those hiding under their desks with wet pants and voting to support the Republicons instead of doing what was responsible.

That doesn't include HRC who, not only voted for the war, she helped promulgate the lies. She knew they were lies. Everyone with half a brain knew they were lies. I don't think it was a smart political move. Just think of the standing she would have now had she opposed the war. But something compelled her to betray the Democrats and help the Republicons. My vote is for "staggering malevolence." It's the only explanation I can imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #103)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:15 PM

122. Yeah something did compel her to betray the Democrats

Fear of being called a "peacenik" by the people she was trying to suck up to. Of course she knew it was all bullshit but she thought the neocons would respect her as "tough" if she voted for it.

She knew that Democrats would excuse her lapse if she voted for the IWR. But if she voted against it she'd be ridiculed forever on Fox as well as the "liberal" media for being one of them kumbaiya singing hippies who just didn't understand how dangerous the world really was. She knew better, but she lacked the spine to do what was best.

She is a political coward. Maybe it's because she is smart enough to see which way the political wind is blowing in this country and she knows it would be suicidal for her to stand up to it. Maybe it's because she's married to the biggest political chameleon we've seen in a long time. I don't know, but I do know that she lacks the courage of her convictions and that to me is inexcusable.

I don't know, maybe we're saying the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #103)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:16 PM

124. She sold out. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #124)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:21 PM

129. Bingo, in three words. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #124)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 03:50 PM

223. she didn't sell out. she's always been a goldwater girl on the essentials.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #223)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:51 PM

266. I guess I had my...

... rose-colored glasses on when she first became First Lady. I thought she was left of Bill. But when their time was up at the WH, I expected her to get a d-i-v-o-r-c-e, and when she didn't, I knew something was different about Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:30 AM

17. No gray here.

Anyone that voted for or supports that War Crime, is no ally of mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #17)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:25 PM

134. Anyone that voted for the continued use of cluster bombs in civilian areas

knowing that innocent children are getting maimed/killed by unexploded bomblets, is no ally of mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:33 AM

18. Due to lies from the Bush administration.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #18)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:07 PM

293. Already covered in Manny's OP.


That would be option "A": staggering stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:36 AM

20. About any area is gray when one is openly dedicated to being amoral as SOP.

Winning isn't just everything, it is the only thing is a statement of a logic that easily gets well out of hand in and disastrously distorts the game the speaker was referring to.
That is just a game for entertainment and it flies apart very quickly and in much worse ways in real life application, especially governance.

After all, we are talking about the portion of society that creates, interprets, and enforces the law.
How dangerous is it to lose track of both letter and spirit and devolve into a game of spin, brinkmanship, lining up dollars for propaganda campaigns?

Nothing but ever going bad to worse is even possible save by random chance when this sick mentality runs unopposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #20)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:42 AM

23. Wow. That's quite a declaration. "Amoral"? "Sick mentality"?

 

Hyperbole much?

Rein it in, dude. We're still 20 months out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:06 PM

115. you subscribe to 'winning is the only thing' i take it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #115)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:18 PM

229. You take it wrong.

 

But hyperbole is standard at DU, so I'm hardly surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 02:54 PM

206. "It" isn't mine to rein in, I'm just calling them as I seem them.

My personal editorial on those sad state of affairs would make some people's souls curdle, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #206)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:20 PM

230. You're incapable of reining in your emotions?

 

That's a level of honesty seldom seen at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #230)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:40 PM

234. What emotion? You haven't seen my personal editorial, that was observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #234)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:56 PM

235. I see. So you have declared as FACT that Hillary is amoral and possesses a sick mentality.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:36 AM

21. Because isn't the worst Democrat...

 

...still better than the best Republican?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #21)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:35 AM

75. No

That would be true only if we ignore the impact on other races/years

A really bad Democrat that causes large loses elsewhere and hands the White House and Supreme Court away for multiple terms is worse than living through another Republican term that reminds people of how bad they can screw things up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:39 AM

22. Such a great and new point! No one ever brought this up before. Ever!!!

 

Damn, Manny. Really? Plowing the old ground? AGAIN?

How many prominent Democrats (wrongly) voted for the war in Iraq? Answer: 58%

How many Dem candidates for either president or vice president who were in the Senate that day voted for the war? 100% (5 Senators)

So... why now? Why still?

Are we using the Tea Party Purity Litmus Test for our candidates? Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:44 AM

26. seriously?

This cannot be brought up enough.

How about looking at how many Democrats that voted no and are gone? Seems the "yes" vote brought in a great deal of money.

How about looking at what we support vs what we should support?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:47 AM

30. "This cannot be brought up enough." No shit! Endlessly, apparently.

 

Except, of course, when we were desperate to get Bush out of office and Kerry/Edwards were our only hope. Then we didn't really mention it much at all.

Let's cut the bullshit: this is just another case of Democrats carrying water for Republicans and attempting to destroy ourselves from within. The ONLY attribute DU has is fighting from the minority position, even when it's against our own. It's fargin' psychotic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:53 AM

37. Addressing your second point:

 

How about looking at how many Democrats that voted no and are gone? Seems the "yes" vote brought in a great deal of money.

How about looking at what we support vs what we should support?


Now THAT is a good point.

We at DU yell a good game, but fall apart when it comes to execution. All we do is find the minority position and scream. We aren't real good at action, or those who voted against Iraq would still be in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #37)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:55 AM

41. Thank you

I keep saying this and you are the first one to actually even acknowledge it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:26 PM

135. The only Democrat who ever GOT ELECTED president didn't vote for the war

And yes I know he wasn't in the Senate, but from what he said at the time, I have confidence that he would not have voted for the IWR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #135)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:30 PM

146. uh, yeah.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:42 AM

24. I appears that we now have perpetual war.

Boots on the ground? I don't think so. I call bullshit on that notion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:45 AM

28. Fortunately you are not the arbiter of what is acceptable or not

Clinton said she would not have voted that way.... "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote," she said in her usual refrain before adding, "and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way." - 2006
She was also against the "surge"...

So it is not a disqualifier for me at all. Unlike some, i think a lot of Democrats voted for the authorization with good intentions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:57 AM

45. except we all knew that the WMD bullshit

Was bullshit. So her "if we knew then" crap is just crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to roody (Reply #57)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:19 AM

62. wow! that's a whole bunch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #45)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:13 AM

394. If we knew it was crap, They® certainly knew it was crap.

Now there is media wide theater where they all pretend that no one could have known it, including the Dubya Administration. And, of course, even if they knew it they meant well because they loved Merica. Jesus and stuff.

And that is utterly ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #394)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:26 AM

395. Hey, jesus didn't just show up

On a cheese sandwich for nothing! It was his love for America and no other country that he did that for, damn it!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #395)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:48 AM

396. I can see what you say is true. Amen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #396)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 08:54 AM

397. jesus bless you. and cheese sandwiches for you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:28 AM

69. Actually, each one of us as individuals

 

and all of us as communities are the FINAL arbiters of what is acceptable or not.

Voting for an international war crime is never going to be acceptable to decent folk, no matter how clumsily you parse it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BubbaFett (Reply #69)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:31 AM

72. LOL - so we aren't decent folk...



We shall see how it all shakes out....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #72)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:38 AM

81. If you support someone

 

who voted for the Iraq War Atrocity, then yes, you really have to take a long look at yourself, because, no, that isn't something decent people would support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BubbaFett (Reply #81)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:42 AM

87. I have no problem with my decency. Perhaps someone should not sit in judgment

of millions of Democrats who have voted for her and will vote for her.
Stay happy in your certitude.

Over and out - since you will no longer be able to answer because you got a hide lower in the thread...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:44 PM

166. There should have been demands made before that vote

Democrats should have demanded a discussion of the intel before any vote to send our troops in harms way. Democrats who actually read the classified intel knew there were problems. Democrats should have demanded that the FBI investigate Curveball's claims before the vote. The Republicans blocking this investigation should have set off all kinds of alarms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:04 PM

240. LOL, so war is OK if she thinks it was justified at the time! LOL, classic! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #28)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:51 AM

384. We all knew it was lies while it was happening. And she had a lot more information than we did.

Her claim of not knowing is bs or stupidity, just as the OP states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:48 AM

31. And I never thought I'd see the day...

when someone would once again bash a leading politician over that vote. Any vote.

So, now that you've had your whiney-ass little tantrum over that vote, exactly what will you do if she is the candidate against any of the leading Republicans out there?

You gonna sit out the vote and claim some moral superiority? Waste your vote on some third party loser and help the Republican win?

No. You're gonna shut the fuck up, eat your words and suck it up and vote for Hillary because whatever she is she's better for the country than any of the Republicans.

That's life in a democracy of 300 million people.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:55 AM

40. Some things are fundamentally inexcusable

 

Voting for the Iraq War Atrocity is fundamentally inexcusable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BubbaFett (Reply #40)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:06 AM

52. OK, so whatcha gonna do if she's the candidate? Go...

hide in a closet and cry about how she's the new Franco?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #52)


Response to Post removed (Reply #56)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:16 AM

60. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Just remember that should...

you refuse to vote for her in the general and watch Jeb win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #60)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:18 AM

61. well

 

30+ years of Republican and Republican-lite rule so far.

The America I was born in is long gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BubbaFett (Reply #61)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:34 PM

154. I think many here don't realize that

They have never seen that America. All they have seen is Republican and Republican-lite rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #60)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:57 AM

109. that might apply if there were some significant good to point to. but what we get is

 

"the republicans would do it worse, and quicker"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #52)


Response to Post removed (Reply #95)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:54 AM

104. +10,000 Where's the positive movement to inspire people, especially young people, to change

 

life for the better? Where's the equivalent of Kennedy and King today?

Nothing but duplicitous and often evil horse-wagering, and "this is all there is, like it or lump it, you're powerless"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #104)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 03:44 PM

218. Actually, I rather agree with that hidden post you're replying to...

However, if you look at American and colonial history for the past 300 years you will find precious few eras with inspiring, or what we today would call "progressive", leadership. Unless we're in times of severe crisis, this is pretty much as good as it gets.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #218)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 03:49 PM

221. I agree; the ptb are forced to concede something to their serfs in times of crisis. crisis from

 

outside and internal crisis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #104)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:58 PM

236. +10,000 to your post, too.

And to the four people who voted to hide the post above, you need to find a way to reverse your rectal-cranial insertions. Jesus Christ, the party is not above such criticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #95)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:29 PM

145. Hear! Hear!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #52)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 07:01 PM

290. First, let's make sure she's not the candidate. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:03 AM

51. +1...

And your post was alerted on. Will post results when they come in.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #51)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:09 AM

53. Of course it was alerted...

never diss the sainted Manny.

Or defend the hated Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #53)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:20 AM

65. Did Manny vote for an International War Crime Atrocity?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BubbaFett (Reply #65)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 03:48 PM

220. Oh, floating around here somewhere is a post explaining that...

the Iraq War Resolution wasn't so much an order to go to war as it was a threat to Saddam that we were capable of going to war should he continue to be the little shit he insisted on being.

Alas, the lesser Bush used it to prove he was as ignorant a little shit as our alleged enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #220)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:56 PM

270. Wait... what?

Oh, floating around here somewhere is a post explaining that...the Iraq War Resolution wasn't so much an order to go to war as it was a threat to Saddam that we were capable of going to war should he continue to be the little shit he insisted on being.


Do you have a link to that? It's already been posted about a couple of dozen times that the OP considered the election of President Obama to be the ONE presidential election he'd like to have seen overturned (and that was when presented with the option to overturn Bush vs. Gore. Something to seriously think about) but this is a new little wrinkle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #270)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 12:37 AM

373. here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6326455

Did you say Manny would have preferred Romney win? That's quite an accusation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:00 PM

111. So no matter what a Dem does - they

 

will always get your vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:49 AM

32. Between 100,000 and 500,000 casualties from the Iraq war they signed on to.

 

Either they were monumentally stupid or coldly ambitious enough to have people massacred to further their lust for power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #32)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:54 AM

38. Betwen 100,000 and 500,000

 

poets
friends
lovers
brothers
bricklayers
fathers
artists
doctors
singers
truck drivers
mothers
teachers
farmers
computer whizzes
sisters
etc.

These were real people just like us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BubbaFett (Reply #38)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:58 AM

46. Exactly. Sacrificed for the political ambitions of those who want to "lead" the nation.

 

But, we're supposed to shrug, forgive, and vote for those people for the sake of Party Loyalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #46)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:59 AM

48. Not if you come from decent folk

 

my people didn't raise me like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #46)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 02:26 AM

379. Yeah, and we must look forward, not backward and all that crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:52 AM

35. Iraq War vote

 

should automatically disqualify Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She should be so monumentally ashamed to have done that.

She should have the dignity, shame, and remorse to not even consider running.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:52 AM

36. The "real" Democratic Party became history when those evil genius Republicans changed our

language and "liberal" became the absolute foulest thing you could be called. From that point on, some dumb fuck campaign advisors have sold Dem politicians on running as "Republican Lites".

A backbone is a terrible thing to waste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:56 AM

44. I cannot excuse John Doe

 

It was his fault we went to war. Then again his fault those same people keep getting elected. I blame John Doe for never holding those people accountable. Yes John Doe you are as guilty as those who abdicated their authority away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:58 AM

47. Now you know why you were not put in charge of defining,,,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #47)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:22 AM

67. Russ Feingold voted to confirm John Roberts for the Supreme Court

So I guess he is disqualified too. LOL!

( Hillary voted no )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cryptoad (Reply #47)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:28 PM

141. Did you support the Iraq War?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Cryptoad (Reply #167)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:50 PM

170. In which case your judgement was better than some of our elected officials.

Sad isn't it, WE knew they were lying, but some of our elected officials, made the wrong decision on one of the most important decisions an elected official will be asked to make, sending this country to war.

I hope we are not presented with anyone whose judgement was less competent than the average citizen who had no access, nor did they need it as the lies were so obvious, to the information that was available to those who were voting as our representatives.

I hope the candidates are people who got it right on such a momentous decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:00 AM

49. DU's high priest of liberalism has spoken!

Evangelical Baptists have got nothing on you.

Sitting above the congregation, pointing out the sinners, and the damned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:10 AM

55. It showed incredibly poor judgment on a matter of foreign policy to

trust the Bush administration. It also showed that there are many Democrats who will vote for war as a political consideration and not think of the consequences just their political future or reelection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neverforget (Reply #55)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:29 AM

70. It just shows the "Win, win, always play to win" ethos of the careerist plutocrat

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:12 AM

58. Why did Kerry concede so rapidly to Bush?

Because he wanted to remain a member of the elite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roody (Reply #58)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:42 AM

88. Skull & Bones... He could not refuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:19 AM

64. They're ALL fucking multi-millionaires. They have no connection to regular people.

To them, their universe is different than ours. They're making backroom deals to benefit/support other backroom deals which will make them more money or garner them more influence over other backroom deals. They've completely lost touch with the rest of the people in this country who don't even have a voice in what hours they work, let alone what countries we bomb.

I'm pretty sick of it. The sad part is, as disgusting as our own party has become, do you think the country will get better by having even more Republicans in control? Can you imagine a Republican president with both houses of Congress at his beck and call? Oh, wait. It has nothing to do with party politics anymore. Unless by "party" you mean Fundraising Cocktail Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #64)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:21 AM

66. I was alive when there were plenty of people around

 

who lived through the Great Depression and World War 2.

That America is gone and dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Atman (Reply #64)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:26 PM

362. Please allow F. Scott Fitzgerald to explain:

 

They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.

The Great Gatsby

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:31 AM

71. And a vote for Reagan was a vote for trickle-down economics and screwing AIDs victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #71)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:37 AM

78. Equating voting for a Republican president with voting to send America to war based on lies?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #78)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 02:06 PM

191. Pretending that being a full tilt Republican starting with Nixon and running past Bush 41 is 'voting

 

for a Republican President' is not very accurate. She was a loyal Republican for 30 years of racist, homophobic, anti choice, Union busting, war machine feeding policy. Or 'voted for a Republican President'.
Those who voted for Reagan the first time were voting for a man who as Governor of CA, when asked about student protests said ""If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement." Three weeks later was the Kent State Massacre. That's what she voted for, to make Governor Bloodbath the President of the United States, because she liked his economic policies. His economic policies were another sort of bloodbath.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #191)

Sun Mar 8, 2015, 10:11 AM

405. there's a difference

between voting as a citizen and voting as a Legislator. I'm happy to examine her votes as a Senator... but as a private citizen, she wasn't even necessarily obligated to tell us her past party preferences. I think saying she contributed to Reagan's demise of America based on a single vote in a National election (especially given her current passions) versus voting to go to war as a Senator is an unfair comparison.

just my 2 pennies...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #71)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:52 AM

102. Point made.

Difference is, she's done a complete 180. Others? Not so much, more a 15° turn to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to F4lconF16 (Reply #102)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:54 PM

188. Has she? Reagan was a Supply Side monster, a racist who actively supported aparthied following

 

policy crafted by Nixon, another Warren supported Republican. Warren voted for Reagan and for Bush, in spite of their egregious inaction on AIDS in the face of thousands of American deaths.
I have never heard her speak about any of that. I have noticed that her boosters are lily white, arrow straight and that many of them also like to tout the Pope, who is anti gay and anti choice just like Republicans.
Let me know when Warren is adult enough to stand up and talk about why she remained in a racist, homophobic anti choice Party for 30 years. So far she says she was a Republican because they 'best supported the markets'. I don't care for that answer. 'I was in a bigoted Party for the money!' 180? Really?
I lived through all of those years as a Democrat. I knew right from wrong, good policy from bad. She did not. She knew how to make herself rich and not think about the harm done to others.

I wish progressives would support Bernie, I can't and won't do the Reagan revisionist shit for Warren. No one is worth that price.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #188)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:33 PM

363. This is a most righteous jeremiad. I think you and I may have had our differences in the

 

past, but on this matter there's not one millimeter of daylight between our positions.

People have forgotten that Reagan presided over the worst recession this country had seen since the Great Depression. (Adult unemployment reached 12% in 1982, IIRC.) That is the monster whom Warren supported, someone willing to beat inflation on the backs of the working class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:35 AM

76. Apparently some here feel voting for the Iraq war no was is no big deal

 

That is pretty disappointing but not unexpected.

Americans in general are very isolated from the consequences of war and it shows.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:38 AM

80. Well, I excuse nothing. I vote in presidential elections

for the Democrat, because I've seen what the other party does when it's in power. If you want someone who did not vote for the Iraq war at the top of the ballot in 2016, you're going to have to work to get one on that ballot. If that doesn't happen, Democrats will vote for the Democrat at the top of the ballot. That's not excusing anything. It's just a vote to set the course for the next four years.

A choice has to be made in November of presidential election years. Before that, we have an opportunity to select who will run. My advice is to promote the candidacy of someone you support. That will, at least, be something productive to do. In November of 2016, the choice will be a binary one. You can choose to vote for the Democratic candidate or not to vote for that candidate. Primary season's about to begin, Manny. Work for a candidate of which you approve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #80)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:50 AM

99. Are there any candidates for the WH right now?

And btw, did you support the Iraq War?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #99)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:27 PM

140. There are some apparent candidates, yes.

We'll soon know who is seeking the nomination.

And no, I did not support the Iraq war. I don't support any wars. I'm opposed to warfare. We have wars, though, from time to time, and I have nothing to do with their beginnings or endings, generally. I protested in front of the Pentagon in 1968 and 1969, and in other places in the DC area, though. I doubt that my protests had anything to do with Vietnam ending. Prior to then, I was too young for war protests, I'm afraid.

Congress has something to do with the beginnings and endings of wars, as does the President. That's one of their functions. They make the wrong decisions frequently. However, that is not all Congress and the President does. If it were, things might be different. Both the executive and legislative branches of government have many, many responsibilities. Looking at the entire picture, I strongly prefer Democrats to Republicans to be in power. Will they always do what I prefer? Certainly, they will not. That does not mean that I can ignore the choice I have in elections.

A number of people have said that I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter. They are incorrect. I don't really have anything to do with who the candidate will be, so I don't really interest myself in that too much. Presidential politics is not my interest, except to work toward getting the Democratic candidate elected in the general election. I do prefer that a Democrat wins, whoever that is. I think it's very likely to be Hillary Clinton, frankly, who will be the candidate nominated. If that is the case, then I will support her election and will campaign for her along with all the other Democrats who will be on the ballot where I live.

I am a Democrat, you see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #140)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:32 PM

149. Then your judgement was better than that of those who did support it. Since there are no declared

candidates right now, I hope we are presented with candidates whose judgement on one of the most important decisions an elected official has to make, is at least as good as yours.

Anyone who was in the House or Senate at the time, as you correctly point out was at least as responsible as Bush, and who abdicated that responsibilty, hopefully will not be among those candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #149)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:36 PM

157. I think I can assure you that some who voted for that war

will be candidates. There will still be an election, where we will have a binary choice. We can vote for the Democrat or not vote for the Democrat. I know what my choice will be, because I have always made that choice, even when defeat was certain.

If you have a favorite potential candidate, then I think you should be working hard to help that candidate get the nomination. I will be voting for the Democratic candidate in any case, though, and recommend that all Democrats do the same. But it's everyone's personal decision. I will simply recommend a vote for the Democrat. You will do as you choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #157)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:57 PM

272. And as always, those who voted for that war will not win. So if Dems want to win, they need to find

people who get these kinds of things right. It's a simple matter, like any job, when you screw up, the one who doesn't generally gets the job.

I do not see the reason for the resistance. Voters made it clear they want leaders who have good judgement. That doesn't seem like too much to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to marym625 (Reply #194)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 10:55 PM

351. Thanks, and I would add Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders. Warren too if she wants to run.

That's quite a few candidates, but so far, no one has declared their candidacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #351)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:03 PM

354. no, a few have. no one good but it's starting

The following individuals have formally announced that they are running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and/or have filed as a candidate for such with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Jeff Boss
Conspiracy theorist and perennial candidate from New Jersey

(Website)
(FEC Filing)

Boss filed as a 2016 candidate in 2012.[1]

Vermin Supreme
Performance artist and perennial candidate from Massachusetts

(Website)

Supreme initially announced his intention to run in 2016 during his 2012 presidential campaign.[2]. He confirmed his candidacy in May 2014[3][4] His official slogan is: "Vermin Supreme 2016:Riding our ponies into a zombie powered future"

Robby Wells
Former head football coach at Savannah StateUniversity; Candidate for the 2012 presidential nomination of the Constitution Party

(Website)
(FEC Filing)

Wells declared his 2016 presidential candidacy in November 2012.[5] After initially announcing he would run as an independent candidate, Wells later declared his intentions to instead seek the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.[6][7]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:43 AM

91. Sorry Manny but we've all been assimilated. It doesn't hurt really.

 


It will all be over in a few minutes, you won't feel a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:48 AM

98. Anti-war has never really been high on the Democratic Party's list ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:51 AM

101. Will Pitt's spirited defense of John Kerry's vote for the IWR

oops.

Apparently, back in the day (around August 2004) Mr. Pitt interviewed John Kerry. One the main points of the interview was the Senator's vote for the IWR. Here is an exchange between Will and several other DUers:

Please bookmark this post, because I am puking sick of typing it over and over again.

Kerry did not say he would still have gone to war in Iraq. This is what he said:

"Yes, I would have voted for that authority but I would have used that authority to do things very differently," Kerry said after a short hike from Hopi Point to Powell Point on the Grand Canyon's South Rim.

The 'Yes' vote on the IWR essential to the establishment of effective weapons inspections. Only the threat of force made the previous inspections effective. I asked Scott Ritter personally if his seven years in Iraq as an inspector would have been effective without the threat of force. He said the inspections would have been useless without the threat.

The US wrote Res. 1441. The US wrote "weapons inspections" into it. It was unanimously approved by the Security Council. The threat of force had to be there; Hussein had jerked around UNSCOM until we bombed him into compliance.

The threat of force got rid of the weapons from 1991-1998. The threat of force was needed to get rid of whatever he might have developed since. As Ritter said in my book, no one was absolutely sure they hadn't retained any of their weapons capabilities.

Are you in favor of weapons inspectors, backed by a unanimous UN Security Council, going in to make sure VX and other weapons were not being developed?

If you were in favor of weapons inspectors, YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF THE THREAT OF FORCE TO BACK THE INSPECTORS. There is no separating the two. Period. (bolding is Will's)


still_one: The authority that Congress gave to bush allowed him to go to war...


WilliamPitt: allowed ***HIM*** to go to war" Any President - even Mr. Gore - would likely have looked hard at Iraq post-9/11 because of that nation's history of WMD development. Gore would have gotten inspectors into the game, and would have asked for a threat of force to back the inspectors up. The difference is the handling of that power, not the delivery of it.




Kerry's reasoning is the same defense offered up by EVERY Democrat who voted for the IWR. "I did not vote for war, I voted for the threat of force to get weapon inspectors in." Will defends Kerry. Angrily defends Kerry, the long-time Senator as in "how dare you question it and I'm sick of repeating it.."

Hillary, the JUNIOR senator from New York. Burn the witch.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x605385

Mr. Pitt also wrote a great article, defending (excusing) John Kerry's vote for the IWR.

http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/46460-william-rivers-pitt--the-trial-of-john-kerry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #101)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 11:54 AM

105. Most excellent post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to wyldwolf (Reply #101)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:05 PM

112. I love Will Pitt

 

IIRC, he and I used to battle on issues like this years ago.

I wonder if he feels the same way today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #112)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:08 PM

116. Is he a 'progressive Democrat?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #116)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:13 PM

120. Based on Will's post a few days ago,

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #120)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:17 PM

125. Which proves my point. He held Kerry to different standard. Wonder why?

Long time Senator Kerry - cool.
Junior Senator Clinton - witch.

Man. Woman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #125)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:19 PM

127. Or he's evolved on the issue.

 

Assuming he's sexist, without a reasonable set of data, is grotesque.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #127)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:22 PM

130. Had no problem with Biden less than 3 years ago. Hmmm...

No problem with Kerry or Edwards. No problem with Biden twice. No evidence he's evolved. Only the candidate has changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #130)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:29 PM

144. Did he have a problem with Hillary's vote in 2008?

 

That would be good to know.

Also, do you have links that support your claims?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #130)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 12:33 PM

151. To clarify my previously post

 

Do you have evidence that at the same time Will was bashing Clinton for her awful vote, he was OK with Biden's and Edwards' vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #151)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 01:41 PM

181. You're finding it difficult to reconcile your OP with Will Pitt's words.

You're finding it difficult to reconcile your OP with Will Pitt's words. And I understand that. Pitt has always been a great and sane voice on DU. But on this IWR issue, he was all over the map. Probably trying to be pragmatic.

The only 'evidence' is his words or his silence.

Here's what we know:

1. He wrote a book with Scott Ritter in 2002 about Bush lying us into war.
2. By 2004 he was defending John Kerry, a Senior Senator, for his vote for the IWR. As far as anyone can tell, he never had an issue with the bill's co-sponsor, John Edwards either.
3. In 2006, Pitt didn't want Hillary to run, worried that fake Clinton scandals would detract from Hillary sin of voting for the IWR

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=629976&mesg_id=630088

4. In 2008 Will didn't care WHO got the nomination - he'd vote for any of them - because ALL OF THEM would pro-science and health care (I guess he'd decided then the IWR was no longer that big of a deal.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2629749

Quick review so far: 2002, anti-IWR. 2004, it was cool that Kerry did. In 2006, it wasn't cool Hillary did. By early 2008, it wasn't a factor in his choice because they all agreed on pro-science.

5. In 2008, Ritter wrote a piece based on that book condemning Hillary Clinton (but not Biden)
6. Will never had an issue with Biden being on the 2008 ticket that I can tell or remember, nor did he insist Biden be removed from the 2012 ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #181)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 02:33 PM

197. Whoa. Let's focus.

 

One thing at a time.

Are you accusing Will Pitt of being a misogynist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #197)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 02:53 PM

205. Nope. Just of using a different standard on Clinton...

... Who happens to be a woman, than three others who've been on the national ticket - who happened to be men on the subject of the IWR. There could be many reasons for that.

It doesn't rise to the level of misogyny in my book. And now that we've got that out of the way...

And kudos to you. You seem to have been quite consistent over the years in your feeling for the IWR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #208)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:06 PM

227. Is he a 'progressive democrat?'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #227)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:37 PM

232. Your pants are on fire, and

 

I already answered that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #232)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 04:38 PM

233. Your pants are on fire and tell us...

"he and I used to battle on issues like this years ago."

What issues make you a 'progressive democrat' and Will not one?

Your attempt to divert by smearing is standard for you. I'll bet I can find some instances where you've been accused of misogyny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #233)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:00 PM

237. You accused Will Pitt of misogyny

 

then denied that you did this.

Why on Earth would I discuss something with you? Like nailing Jello to a tree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #237)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:04 PM

239. No I didn't. I said he held Clinton to a different standard than he did three men

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #237)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:05 PM

242. So what makes you a 'progressive democrat' and not Will?

What are some of those issues that separates you from him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #242)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:08 PM

246. I said he is a progressive Democrat

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #246)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:11 PM

250. according to the logic in your OP, Will Pitt isn't a 'progressive democrat"

Or did you forget to sign your OP 'Third Way Manny?'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #205)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:22 PM

253. since most who oppose hrc right now favor Warren, your misogyny claims fail the laugh

 

test. But don't let that stop you. Personality cults are difficult to deprogram

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #253)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:27 PM

254. Your attempt at smearing to divert the point is typical.

But don't let that stop you.

since most who oppose hrc right now favor Warren


We're not talking about 'most' and the conversation is definitely not confined to 'now.'

your misogyny claims fail the laugh test


You attempt at contributing to the discussion fails the laugh test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #254)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:35 PM

256. your "point" is to taint all criticism of Hillary by calling all critics anti-woman. I pointed out

 

that such attempted smears are patently wrong, and easily proven as such. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #256)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 05:36 PM

257. Really? You have links to back that charge? No, you don't

What you're trying to do is shut down push-back from Clinton supporters by using that smear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #257)

Sat Mar 7, 2015, 08:35 PM

311. errr, Manny has a link about three posts up from here, and