Some on the 'left' are beating the War drums

[RobertEarl]

It's fascinating how a good amount of Duers do more war drumming than call for Peace. Defend war more than they ever defend Obama. I'm not saying DEFEND OBAMA - I'm saying how interesting they can't even find anything bad to say about war, and yet can't help but fall over themselves to defend the murderous bigot bush, his Iraq invasions, and failure to stop 9/11.

[The Magistrate]

1. This Is Probably The Most Nonesensical Post Of the Summer, Sir

The 'beating the war drums' line is the lamest usage currently employed on this forum.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. But it's true.

Because we know it's true.

All we can do is commiserate about how awful it is.

[sabrina 1]

22. Yes, it is and if we go to war you can bet the cheerleading will be as loud as it was on the right

(but what will THEY do then become anti-war? lol) for the Iraq War.

However, I get the impression that Obama has been trying NOT to get into any more conflicts and has angered the war mongers, see Dick Cheney on the Corporate Media this week, calling him the 'worst President in history' because he won't 'send in the troops' or didn't leave them in Iraq, forever.

We cannot know what pressures are on presidents to continue the war mongering, even back to the Kennedy era.

This crash has damaged his efforts to remain on the path of diplomacy as the war mongering started right away as if they were waiting for it. All the old warmongers are going to be pushing for NATO to get involved, the rhetoric is feverish right now, very reminiscent of 9/11. The evoking of all the old Cold War fears is obvious.

I would not want to be in his position right now. But he NEEDS US to be loudly supportive of his unwillingness to 'send in the troops'. THEY are going to be attacking and smearing him, see Cheney again, until he does.

[RobertEarl]

6. I read the drumming for war

Oh, it's hidden a bit, closeted you might say. But it's there.

I am a peacenik, maybe i am just tuned in to the war drumming more than others?

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Oh, I know it's true, too.

And those who don't see it? It's because they're part of the problem. They'll never see it.

[RobertEarl]

13. We need make them see

Peace is all we are asking.

Peace is good for everyone, even the blind.

[Union Scribe]

83. You're completely right here.

I have vigorously disagreed with you before but when you're right you're right. Soft drumming for war is still drumming for war, and sometimes they pick up the volume a bit like one DUer the other day who stated we must "crush them"--them being either Russia or the pro-Russians or both.

[RobertEarl]

91. Yep

We have butted heads. So thanks for the reply, and let me say I am disgusted that you had a jury hide your post below, downthread.

[zappaman]

29. Of the summer?

I'd say it a strong contender for most nonsensical of the year!
But, given the author, it's not surprising.

[The Magistrate]

31. Back In March, Sir, I Got Burned Thinking The Trophy For The Year Had Been Settled....

So I am trying to keep my enthusiasm for spectacular efforts on tighter rein....

[RobertEarl]

35. Listen to this drum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5259877

I suspect the operators of the missile system ....

.. were sheep dipped members of the Russian army and are already back in Russia and in hiding waiting for this to cool down and then go work for the equivalent of the KGB.

[The Magistrate]

38. That Is Not a Call For War, Sir

Is is somewhat purple-ish in its tone, but it is not unreasonable to suppose Russian personnel were involved in working the missile battery; they were certainly involved in training operators. To say something is a reasonable supposition is not to state it is a fact.

You fall far short of establishing that the person is calling for war between the United States and Russia.

[RobertEarl]

42. Drum beating

It is claiming that it is an act of war.

That Russia committed this act of war. Officially and with understanding that the perps were hidden, in Russia, by the Russian military.

Notice further down that the poster in question claims to be familiar with such ops.

[The Magistrate]

43. That's Not Drum Beating, Sir --- THIS Is Drum Beating....

[RobertEarl]

45. And another drum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5253477

The Jewish State will continue to defend itself against Hamas terrorism.

I hope they crush Hamas.

[RobertEarl]

48. Accusing Russia and Puitin of a war crime

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5260854

No, putin was behind the air missile and training that brought down the Malaysian Airplane. Stupid

reckless shit.

[RobertEarl]

51. No other links right now

But surely those who have been around do remember the drum-beating to attack Syria. And the Libyan attacks were condoned by many.

There is no denial that many on DU support war.

[The Magistrate]

53. You Seem To Have a Problem With People Stating Facts, Sir

That high-reach anti-aircraft missiles are in the hands of secessionists in east Ukraine owes to acts of Putin's government.

That is a flat fact: why you expect people not to state this fact, and try and stigmatize stating it as war-mongering, quite escapes me....

[RobertEarl]

61. Words have meanings, Sir

I say war drum-beat, you say war-mongering. There is a difference.

I would certainly appreciate you using the same wording.

You seem to have come to a conclusion of who is to blame for this situation. That seems unwise, and I surprised.

[The Magistrate]

63. They Do, Sir, And The Phrase 'Beating The War Drums' Means Trying To Rouse Enthusiasm For War

Which is what war-mongering is.

Your comments on this beg the question: you fail to prove, or even to make a decent case, that the person stating the fact that Russia provided high-reach missiles to secessionists in east Ukraine is stating that fact because he wants to rouse enthusiasm for war. For his stating the fact to be proof of that, you would have to know he does indeed want war, and only if you assume it to be true that he wants war, does the statement serve as an example of trying to rouse enthusiasm for war. You have to prove that he wants war; you cannot assume it, and rest your case he is trying to rouse enthusiasm for war on that assumption.

[RobertEarl]

65. Spreading it out are you?

Hey, i was quite clear in the words i used that it is drum-beating, not war-mongering, or desire for war. Just beating the war drum.

Accusing another country of an act of war without proof or solid evidence, is war drumming. What else would one call it?

Again, there was the Syria drum-beatings, and the Libyan drum-beatings, indeed, there were some who actively wanted, desired and even demanded the US attack. That there, that was war-mongering. You can deny it all you want and come after me for telling the truth. I say, you are wasting yours and my time. Have a good day.

[The Magistrate]

67. With Your Belly Up Like That, Sir, It Would Be Unseemly To Continue The Thing....

"Once long ago, the Sage said: 'The King has his executioner, but you are not that man. If you try and be him, it would be like trying to cut wood like a master carpenter. If you try and cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.'"

[RobertEarl]

68. At least four possibilities of what caused this

1) Russia
2) Ukraine
3) Ukraine secessionists
4) Mistake attack by any of the above 3

Jumping to conclusions about who caused this is unwise.

[The Magistrate]

69. "One Should Keep An Open Mind, But Not So Open One's Brains Fall Out'

[RobertEarl]

70. How about Ray Mcgovern?

By Ray McGovern

It will likely take some time to determine who downed the Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 over eastern Ukraine on Thursday, killing all 298 people onboard. Initial speculation is that someone with a missile battery mistook the plane as a military aircraft, but the precise motive may be even harder to discern.

Given the fog of war and the eagerness among the various participants to wage “information warfare,” there is also the possibility that evidence – especially electronic evidence – might be tampered with to achieve some propaganda victory.

<snip>

... the U.S. press might pause to recall how it’s been manipulated by the U.S. government in the past, including three decades ago by the Reagan administration twisting the facts of the KAL-007 tragedy.

<snip>

U.S. intelligence also knew from sensitive intercepts that the tragedy had resulted from a blunder, not from a willful act of murder (much as on July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes fired a missile that brought down an Iranian civilian airliner in the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people, an act which President Ronald Reagan explained as an “understandable accident”).

<snip>

On Sept. 6, 1983, the Reagan administration went so far as to present a doctored transcript of the intercepts to the United Nations Security Council (a prelude to a similar false presentation two decades later by Secretary of State Colin Powell on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction).

“The tape was supposed to run 50 minutes,” Snyder said about recorded Soviet intercepts. “But the tape segment we (at USIA) had ran only eight minutes and 32 seconds. … ‘Do I detect the fine hand of (Richard Nixon's secretary) Rosemary Woods here?’ I asked sarcastically.’”

But Snyder had a job to do: producing the video that his superiors wanted. “The perception we wanted to convey was that the Soviet Union had cold-bloodedly carried out a barbaric act,” Snyder wrote.

<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101698197

[The Magistrate]

72. He Has To Make A Living, Sir: I Do Not Take Him Very Seriously

He has his shtick, and he plays it for what it is worth.

[Enrique]

94. what is that opinion based on?

that Ray McGovern is doing shtick? I personally have found him to be very credible. Is there something that happened that I don't know about that discredited him?

[RobertEarl]

97. Yes. He conflicts with the Magistrate.

That's about all I can tell.

The one; McGovern, is a hero to the cause of good government and peace, and the other? See his journal.

[RobertEarl]

88. How about Stephen Cohen, then?

Stephen Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics, New York University and Princeton University.


STEPHEN COHEN: The horror of it all, to quote Conrad, watching your reports on Gaza, knowing what I know but what’s not being reported in the mainstream media about what’s been going on in eastern Ukraine cities—these cities have been pounded by Kiev—and now this. "Emeritus," as you call me, means old. I’ve seen this before. One function of cold war is innocent victims. The people who died, nearly 300, from many countries, are the first victims, nonresidential victims, of the new Cold War. This crash, this shootdown, will make everything worse, no matter who did it.

There are several theoretical possibilities. I am not a conspiracy buff, but we know in the history of the Cold War, there are provocations, people who want to make things worse. So, in Moscow, and not only in Moscow, there are theories that somebody wanted this to happen. I just can’t believe anybody would do it, but you can’t rule anything out.

The other possibility is, because the Ukrainian government itself has a capability to shoot down planes. By the way, the Ukrainian government shot down a Russian passenger jet, I think in 2001. It was flying from Tel Aviv to Siberia. It was an accident. Competence is always a factor when you have these weapons.

Another possibility is that the rebels—we call them separatists, but they weren’t separatists in the beginning, they just wanted home rule in Ukraine—that they had the capability. But there’s a debate, because this plane was flying at commercial levels, normally beyond the reach of what they can carry on their shoulders.

There’s the possibility that the Russians aided and abetted them, possibly from Russian territory, but I rule that out because, in the end, when you don’t know who has committed a crime, the first question a professional investigator asks is, "Did anybody have a motive?" and the Russians certainly had no motive here. This is horrible for Putin and for the Russian position.

That’s what we know so far. Maybe we’ll know more. We may never know who did this.

..............................

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5259634

[The Magistrate]

89. That Comment Is Pretty Much Hash, Sir

It is clear he has no particular knowledge of the circumstances of the event, and he seems to have a very limited imagination. The greatest flaw of the analysis he presents is that he proceeds from the assumption that it was done knowingly and purposefully, while anyone with much appreciation and understanding of the situation proceeds from the view that it was done mistakenly and by accident.

His comments over-all demonstrate one of the pitfalls of academic life, which is that what one spends time studying, one frequently comes to feel real affection, even love, for. It clouds analysis, as it has clearly done in his expressed views of this situation. As the song says 'Loving eyes can never see', and Prof. Cohen turns loving eyes on Russia and its behavior today.

[RobertEarl]

90. No, not really

He just isn't stupidly jumping to a conclusion. He uses reasoning and articulation to lay out what we should all be considering.

He sure ain't no warmongerer. He's keeping an open mind about this new situation and analyzing the possibilities. I guess some might say his brains might spill out because of his open mind, but that would just be a childish type of rhetoric.

[RobertEarl]

93. I will leave you and readers with these items to look at

First is this thread about the Palestinians

The pictures from Gaza we're not supposed to see (WARNING: GRAPHIC)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5261351

*******************

And secondly, to check your journal.

[hrmjustin]

2. Huh? People are defending Bush here?

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Now that DU is an evidence-free zone...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025260125

I think we can safely say that the "Left" eats babies, worships Satan, and causes the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Bastards! Probably paid disruptors!

[Hekate]

7. Thanks for the opportunity to reply to your post there, Manny

[MannyGoldstein]

8. You mean your slink?

Something to be proud of, I guess.

[Hekate]

11. Hey baby, when I slink by, you'll know it by the sway of my hips

It just gets kinkier here tonight. -- already I've had someone invite me to bite them.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Hubba-hubba

Something to look forward to.

[hrmjustin]

15. Wow I feel DU unity in that thread!

[The Magistrate]

16. Not Really, Sir: There Is Some Accuracy In What Our Hibernian Friend States

There is in fact a number of people, who at least proclaim themselves to be leftists and progressive here, who have spent a great deal of time recently defending V. Putin and his actions in Ukraine, and alleging President Obama is a tool or stooge of neo-cons, is seeking to go to war over Ukraine, or to despoil and ravish it, and is in general rather a bad egg where Central Europe, among other locales, is concerned. Anyone who has spent much time on discussions here concerning events in Ukraine will be aware of this. It is not only foolish but futile to deny it.

"If you find you're in a fair fight, you fucked up."

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Why is it that nobody seems able to link

to the posts that defend Putin?

Some sort of paralytic contagion?

[The Magistrate]

19. Because No One Plays That Silly Game, Sir

No one is going to bother to go and link you to things you have already read and are only pretending to be ignorant of. Any thread in which events in Ukraine have been discussed over the past several months will contain comments from leftists supporting the policies and claims of the Russian government and its leader.

"Pretending not to know what everyone knows has come to define political discourse here."

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Or... they got nothin'

I'm voting for nothin'. It seems like not buying the US government's claims hook, line and sinker gets confused with defending Putin around here, yet those are totally different things.

Agreeing the RT sucks and has an agenda, but so do other news sources so we have to be careful, also earns one the Putin Lover moniker. Which is also absurd.

[The Magistrate]

23. Again, Sir, You Are Prentending Not To Know What We Both Know You Do Know

It is boring, and will not serve to hold my interest much longer, if at all....

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Like we pretended to not know Saddam had WMD?

[The Magistrate]

25. I Was Quite Aware He Had No Nuclear Weapons, Sir

And strongly doubted he had at present much in the way of nerve gases.

So what is your point? Are you going to trot out incubators in Kuwait? Going through a greatest hits reel is not going to get you anywhere.

One of the problems smart people have is coming to think just about everybody else is stupid. It is not true. A line of argument based on the view that people posting on Democratic Underground for any length of time are political naifs who unthinking believe anything they hear on cable news or read in an AP bulletin is extremely foolish to press, since the chances that you are more politically aware and more knowledgeable than the person you are so disparaging is, in most cases, pretty slim.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Umm...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5260931

[The Magistrate]

30. Focus, Sir: I Am Uninterested In What Anyone Else May Have Posted

And I repeat:

One of the problems smart people have is coming to think just about everybody else is stupid. It is not true. A line of argument based on the view that people posting on Democratic Underground for any length of time are political naifs who unthinking believe anything they hear on cable news or read in an AP bulletin is extremely foolish to press, since the chances that you are more politically aware and more knowledgeable than the person you are so disparaging is, in most cases, pretty slim.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Focus: somebody tried hard to find evidence to buttress your claims,

obviously found nothing, and had to resort to a *tweet* from someone who *might* be a DUer that says nothing about Putin or Russia.

What would it take to admit that you're simply mistaken?

As a rule, I don't think people are *stupid*. Not at all. But we are all ignorant to a greater or lesser degree, in the sense that we *ignore* the plain truth in front of our faces when it jostles our world view.

[The Magistrate]

33. Nothing To Do With Me, Sir

I have been fairly active in threads on Ukraine, and know the leading participants on both sides, by name, off-hand. I have described the state of play accurately. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the matter, rather than try and play the 'gimmie a link' game. And I suggest, too, that you drop the pretense that 'It seems like not buying the US government's claims hook, line and sinker gets confused with defending Putin around here...Agreeing the RT sucks and has an agenda, but so do other news sources so we have to be careful, also earns one the Putin Lover moniker." Claims from Russia Times and other official Russian sources are posted by some as accurate accounts of events, which they are not, and pretending that one is posting them to present 'an alternative view' or because 'one must keep an open mind' are simply subterfuges. A number of people flat out argue in favor of the view of events put out by the Russian government, presenting them as factual descriptions and sound analysis. Denying this only makes you look foolish, or else ignorant of what goes on in discussions of the matter.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. Perhaps I'm stupid and/or foolish

But if you're unable to supply a link supporting what you claim, and others have tried and failed...

well, it is what it is.

Have a good night.

[The Magistrate]

36. Ritual Chants, Sir, Have No Effect On Me

People try to ward off collapse of their position with chants of 'ad hominem' or 'strawman' or 'gotta link', but these have no more effect than the person addressed by them chooses to give them. I give them none. The first two are almost never used accurately, and the last, the one you have chosen to wave, is simply a distraction, and an attempt to secure the initiative in an exchange without the bother of actually making a sound argument which will catch someone up short and make them think. It would not matter in any case; your next move, if supplied with links, would be to deny that they really demonstrated what they were presented as, and you would try and see if you could get the person engaged to scurry off and research further for you, or see if you could provoke an angry outburst, or try and simply declare victory and hope it sold the audience. Because you began with the intent of declaring no one posts here in support of Putin and his policies, and have no interest whatever in whether that is actually the case: it suits you to believe it is not the case, and that is that for you.

[msanthrope]

41. You know Manny, I, for one, appreciate the multiple opportunities you gave

The Magistrate to kick you in the posterior.

A side effect of your prolific OP making is that everyone knows exactly where you stand.

[NanceGreggs]

46. That is an excellent summation ...

... of the current state of affairs.

[The Magistrate]

47. Great To See You, Ma'am

Have missed your 'rants'....

[NanceGreggs]

87. It is always a pleasure ...

... to encounter you, Good Sir.

My 'rants' are still to be found elsewhere. They tend to focus on the real enemy, the GOP (hey, remember THEM?) rather than provoking enmity towards our fellow party members.

Sadly, pointing out that the GOP is still a real and present danger to Democratic ideals is no longer welcome here. It tends to interfere with posts about both parties being the same, Obama being a corporate shill, etc.

But I am grateful to be remembered, by your own esteemed and level-headed self, as someone whose devotion to Democrats and opposition to Republicans was once what this site was all about.

I hope all is well with you and yours, and am grateful to see you still fightin' the good fight.

[msanthrope]

73. There are only a few posters on this board I would not fuck with.

The Magistrate tops that list.

[NanceGreggs]

81. Agreed.

He invariably enters into a debate armed with those pesky things called "facts" - something a lot of people here have absolutely no tolerance for.

[joshcryer]

40. Not "might be."

Absolutely, 100%, is: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Catherina/718

Of course, typically, you condition the request on specific instances of love and support or some such nonsense, but, you know, such an effort would be futile, as you would deflect any attempts to do that. What is being asked of you, by others, and The Magistrate, is that you take the whole, as evidence.

[MannyGoldstein]

79. Kind of the RICO act for Comsymps?

High sensitivity, low specificity. I believe that you've had a few personal instances where "weaving the pieces together as a whole" has not panned out? (Or perhaps I really *am* Frank?)

That's why there aren't many laws like RICO, and they set an incredibly high bar.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. I think this sums it up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5260917

Yikes!

[machiavelliisalive]

37. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: The Problem Isn’t Conflict, It’s Violent Conflict Management

This is a good discussion of the viewpoint that antiwar liberals express that seems to get distorted in the current climate.

Published on Friday, July 18, 2014 by Common Dreams
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: The Problem Isn’t Conflict, It’s Violent Conflict Management
by Erin Niemela

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/07/18

In 2014, the growing list of suffering by violent conflict management includes (but is not limited to): more than 10,000 murders and kidnappings in Nigeria, civil war in Syria, escalated terrorism in Iraq, an asymmetrical bombardment in Gaza, and now somebody, some faction, some government shot down a Malaysia Airlines jet and killed 295 human beings. The cause of the tragedy – a missile - confirmed by a U.S. official, will guide at least one week of media coverage. We’ll bicker and brood about who done it, how and why until the next tragedy and the next and the next. All the while, we’ll ignore the underlying assumption: that violence is natural, inevitable and an acceptable method for problem solving – so long as it’s done by our guys with our weapons on their guys and their ground.

I don’t care who did it. I care that the victims and their families find justice – at least knowing the absolute truth and receiving reparations and support. But, I don’t care who’s to blame, what weapons they used, which countries/leaders are allies/enemies, who hates Malaysians, Americans, Russians, Ukrainians or any of the typical issues fueling analyses from political science talking heads on mainstream media. There’s only one most important problem anyone should care to address: All violence, from state to non-state to domestic varieties, all weapons, from small arms to nuclear bombs, and all industries profiting from human violence, from manufacturers at every level to dealers of every “legal” degree, have only ever caused more violence, war, destruction and suffering all over the world. This global pro-violence worldview will shoot us all down from the sky unless we – as international citizens of rational mind – reject the outdated, illogical idea that violence is an acceptable, or possible, means for achieving peace.

Let’s finally start listening to and joining with the voices of positive peace – defined by my mentor and dear friend Tom Hastings, author and professor of conflict resolution, as: “peace and justice by peaceable means.” World Beyond War, a nonviolent international movement to abolish war and build a truly sustainable global peace, has a plan in which we can all participate. Physicians for Social Responsibility have been working for more than 50 years on campaigns to ban nuclear weapons, reverse or mitigate climate change (a current cause of violent conflict in some areas – especially when violence is the preferred method of conflict management choice) and eliminate toxic waste that violently threatens our very existence on Earth. Online university, media service, research institute and peace development network Transcend International, founded by Prof. Dr. Johan Galtung, father of Peace and Conflict studies, aims to educate the global public on current peace and conflict research and peacebuilding practices, including peace journalism, that will create a positive-peace world. There is also the United States Institute for Peace (can you believe it?!), established by Congress to “increase the nation’s capacity” to use nonviolent conflict management methods. USIP had its funding completely eliminated and reinstated between February and April 2011 – a flagrant message to our peacebuilders that pro-violence politicians can and will cut you – if we let them.

[BillZBubb]

5. I'm perplexed.

Where are all these people defending bush and the Iraq invasion?

[Igel]

9. Indeed.

No clue.

[neverforget]

12. I see what you did there

[BillZBubb]

14. There is a problem with that.

It is like telling an inside joke to a crowd with few insiders. It makes the teller look bad.

[RobertEarl]

27. I mean everything i wrote

I'm saying how interesting they can't even find anything bad to say about war, and yet can't help but fall over themselves to defend the murderous bigot bush, his Iraq invasions, and failure to stop 9/11.

Because if they were like so many others here, they would be demanding Obama try the bush people, but i rarely see them doing so. Instead, what i see mainly is: "Forget about it." That, to me, is a defense.

[Rex]

21. IKR!?

Wazupwitdat2?

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

39. What's really fascinating is that you (or anyone) would make

these scurrilous and patently ridiculous accusations without a shred of evidence to back them up. And get recs for them (even if one of them is your own). That's what's really fascinating.

Are there persons here who "defend the murderous bigot bush, his Iraq invasions, and failure to stop 9/11"? A few trolls, maybe. But of course you couldn't even be bothered to link to any of their posts. So what is it, exactly, that you're so exercised about?

[RobertEarl]

44. Welcome to DU

Have you lurked for a while? If you had you would have known there have been many who have looked the other way when it comes to bush and the efforts to have his bunch tried as war criminals. Many of the same these days are the ones i see beating the war drums. I will seek and list their ideas on this page, as i did one above.

The simple thing is, many have supported atrocities to be, or in the past, committed. Otherwise DU would be all like me and many others here who constantly battle the MIC and wars on the horizon. Alas, our fight for Peace continues.

You can join us.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

50. Yes, I've "lurked for a while"

starting in early 2003 when this site ran my first political essay, back in the day when it ran such things. It was about the Bush (mis)Administration's illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. You can read it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/04/19_flag.html

I joined soon after and later rolled out the now-defunct DUzy Awards, which were popular enough here that responding "DUzy!" to a post is still common and widely understood even by people who weren't active here back then, such as yourself (though perhaps you were lurking at the time). My old login was broken, and I made a new one.

So you can join me, brother, although for some nagging reason I suspect I wouldn't jump at the chance to share a foxhole with you. Personally, I never thought that castigating fellow DUers with cheap (and wholly baseless) slurs was a great way to build fellow-feeling.

[RobertEarl]

52. Well

As you can see i am a fanatic about being anti-war. So, no foxhole will thee ever find me. You can have it all to yourself.

Do you not remember any Octafish threads where repeatedly there were several characters who made jokes when Octafish attacked the BFEE - Bush Family Evil Empire?

And are you also in denial that many here have supported Obama not taking the bushies to trial? That is, imo, a defense. Obama had his reasons, but there is no reason for someone on DU to accept that except as a defense. They could all easily have joined us in asking Obama to take action.

And what of the support here for attacking Syria? And the bombing of Libya?

[Hissyspit]

54. Hey, JeffR.

[The Magistrate]

58. Good To See You Back, Sir!

Hope all is and has been well.

[Skidmore]

86. Hi, JeffR, so good to see you again.

It's been a while. Post more often.

[Coventina]

76. HAHAHAHA! He recced his own thread!!!!

Oh man, pathetic!!!
I never even thought to look for something like that!

[RobertEarl]

92. I don't usually do that type rec

So very nice of you to make note. I shall remember your kindness.

[Coventina]

95. As I made clear in my post, it wasn't me who noticed.

And, if you think I'm being mean for finding it funny, that's not nearly as mean as implying that DUers are advocating war when you haven't been able to supply ANY proof of your theory.

So, go ahead, keep voting yourself as awesome.

Send yourself flowers on St. Valentine's Day, whatever....

[RobertEarl]

98. Cool

But if you look upthread there are several posts detailing war support.

Have a nice day.

[Union Scribe]

84. Whoops, forgot to rec this thread.

Thanks for the reminder.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

85. You're welcome.

Good thing you got your rec in before being tossed from the thread.

[DeSwiss]

49. Who!? Eh!?

[misterhighwasted]

64. All seriousness of this thread was just completely lost with

your unusual O RLY baby gif.
LMAO !
That gets funnier the longer you stare at it

[DeSwiss]

66. Then my work here is done.

[center]

''I'll be here through Thursday.
And try the veal!!!''
[/center]

[Niceguy1]

55. not our plane

Not our problem

[jonjensen]

56. hamas and mike malloy

If one wants to here the other side talk show host Mike Malloy is trying to give it with out commercial sponsorship.

[pnwmom]

57. If Congress had concentrated on going after Bush, the ACA would never have been passed.

The choice was made to try to get something positive done instead of spending those important two years trying to prosecute Bush.

We barely got the ACA passed as it was. If we were going after Bush instead, we wouldn't have accomplished anything else legislatively.

[jonjensen]

60. aca or medicare for all!

Good we might have medicare for all and not have lost 2010 election!

[RobertEarl]

62. If congress

... had gone after bush we would have seen the largest turnout ever in 2010 to elect honest congress people and the republican party would be a smouldering ruin.

Too many in '10 said: "Aw, what's the use" and stayed home.

[pnwmom]

75. Or, alternatively,it could have backfired on us just as it did when the Rethugs impeached Clinton.

It would have torn the country apart and the Rethugs might have gone to the polls in droves while cynical Dems stayed home. We don't know -- but there was a large downside risk.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. OMFG not that horseshit again.

But of course that must be it. We got shitty republican healthcare but we had to give up prosecution of war crimes in exchange. Right. Sure. Exactly.

[pnwmom]

78. So you had great insurance pre ACA. 20 million other people benefited

but you couldn't care less because you had yours. Lucky you.

If Ted Kennedy hadn't died, we would have had the votes for a public option. And we would have had a large Medicaid expansion in all 50 states if SCOTUS hadn't ruled as they did. Even so, thanks to the ACA, millions of Americans now have health insurance who didn't before, and the vast majority are happy with their policies -- even Republicans.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. It is shitty republican healthcare.

For which zero republicans voted, but somehow we horse traded none of their votes in exchange for not doing anything about the war crimes committed by the prior regime. Horseshit.

P.S. I support the shitty republican healthcare we got, just not the fabulously dishonest theory that not putting Bush in jail was part of the deal.

[LWolf]

74. No.

Some Democrats might be beating War drums, but Democrats are not "the left." There are some Democrats who are part of "the left," to be sure, but the Democratic Party is not "the left," and neither are those Ds beating War drums.

[NuclearDem]

96. Goddamn starfish!