Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
The South is known for its strong support of the military. Perhaps it's that very support that has led to something one might not expect – growing opposition to the war in Iraq. Not only opposition matching national levels, but in some southern states even exceeding it.
An important new national survey by the Institute for Southern Studies and the School of Public and International Affairs at North Carolina State University shows that, "Southerners, after disproportionate support for the war early on, now doubt US policy in Iraq just as strongly as people in other regions of the country, and in some cases more so."
Fifty-seven percent of Southerners believe the US "should have stayed out of Iraq," compared to fifty-eight percent nationally. Thirty percent said the US should "withdraw completely," compared to twenty-six in non-Southern states. Fifty-six percent of Southerners support a decrease or total withdrawal of US troops, compared to fifty-nine percent in other regions. (The 13 southern states for purposes of this poll include: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.)
According to the Institute for Southern Studies, "The results signal a shift in Southern attitudes towards Iraq. As recently as July 2005, a Pew Center poll found fifty-three percent of Southerners believed using military force against Iraq was ‘the right decision,' the highest level of support in the country."
This survey comes on the heels of an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that reveals a similar shift among southern women: only thirty-two percent approve of President Bush's handling of the war, compared to twenty-eight percent nationally. Further, three out of five southern women plan to vote Democratic in the midterm elections – an encouraging change from the fifty-four percent support George Bush received in 2004.
"The current Washington leadership has counted on Southern states as a bastion of support on Iraq," said Chris Kromm, director of the non-partisan Institute based in Durham, NC., "but clearly that support is deteriorating."
The significance of this southern shift was noted in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-ed by the astute Jay Bookman: "When you've lost even the South, it's over. Pretending that we can sustain our effort in Iraq for several more years with such meager support here at home is sheer fantasy."
Of course, operating under sheer fantasy is nothing new for the Bush administration. The only way to burst its bubble and end this war is to voice opposition, vote opposition, and hold our representatives accountable on November 7.
Working Families Party--Continued
This past Monday, I posted an Editor's Cut about the great Pete Seeger's letter urging New Yorkers to vote this election season on the Working Families Party ballot line. I also suggested that those--like me--who believe the WFP should have either abstained from endorsing, or refused to cross-endorse, Hillary Clinton for Senate because of her position on the war should just go for Spitzer and the down ballot races. My colleague Katha Pollitt, the finest columnist working in these times, wrote me and asked:
Hi Katrina,
What do you make of this, from the listserv Portside:
"In another race in Rockland County where I live, we have a Democratic candidate, Nancy Low-Hogan, challenging the long entrenched Republican/Conservative endorsed Thomas P. Morahan for the State Senate in the 38th Senate District. The Working Families Party also has given Morahan their line instead of the Democratic candidate."
Do you really want people to "vote the WFP ticket in down ticket races" as you say in Editor's Cut-- when the WFP candidate is a Republican?"
Katha,
Thanks for pointing out this race. I'd still strongly urge people to vote for Eliot Spitzer for Governor on the WFP line. Then, voters should choose their candidates, down ballot, as they see fit. Follow your conscience--and in these days, that may well mean a vote against the GOP. However, it's worth pointing out that in some of these cases, what we should really focus on is redistricting (which we need a pro-democracy movement to bust up) because those Republican candidates on the WFP line are pretty much invulnerable. But the bottom line remains: The WFP operates as a fusion party, trying to provide strategic support and then using the leverage it builds for policy gains that actually improves people's lives. It's fair to say that in terms of real-world impact in New York, in terms of building a multi-class, multi-racial political organization, the WFP's strategy has been effective.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
George Bush: "We were never stay the course"
Posted by LiberalPride at 10/26/2006 @ 12:47pm
Uh....
"The South is known for its strong support of the military"
So, Ms vanden Heuvel, what does that mean "the North" is known for, as far as support of the military?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2006 @ 1:03pm
It'll be interesting to see how many "in the bag" elections actually go the way nobody predicted. Looks like Howard was right to say that all races, in every state, will get attention from the National Dems. It's about time.
Posted by barnesgene at 10/26/2006 @ 1:34pm
if and when agreement is reached between the Sunni's and Shia on revenue sharing from oil production and violence declines significantly?
that's a pretty big if. how many more americans will you sacrifice for this "if"?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/26/2006 @ 1:59pm
and yet the media are in complete and downright denial of polls. they keep saying, over and over and over again, that republicans have the edge on the security and on the economy, polls show otherwise. they keep saying that pelosi is "dangerous" and that people don't "trust her," yet polls show otherwise. they keep saying that americans don't want a democratic congress, and yet again, polls show otherwise.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2006 @ 2:45pm
And hate to agree with LVLIBERTY....but he's right about the "Institute for Southern Studies".
Self-acknowledged "progressive" organization....so again, we're back to the old question to those on the Left..."Would you accept the 'non-partisan' survey results from the CATO Institute or the Heritage Foundation", if it disagreed with your political views!?!?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2006 @ 2:49pm
LL
Secondly, you actually believe that the Sunni and Shia will never agree on a revenue sharing program? You must hold them in very low regard.
No, he just doesn't share your Pollyannish, faith-based view of Iraq. The Shi'a are going forward with their plans to created a super-province out of the South, sound like progress on revenue sharing to you? Of course, you haven't mentioned the Kursish-Arab/Turkoman tensions centered on Kirkuk either.
Similarily, if agreement is reached with Al Sadr to end his militia activity or we take him down?
Right, because us killing Sadr will calm things down just like our killing Zarqawi did.
Ask the high number of soldiers who are re-enlisting at record rates and volunteering to return to Iraq.
The high recruiting also has a lot [tinyurl.com] to do with 1) raising the maximum age, 2) offering bonuses--about 2/3s who sign up get them, including $40,000 for people willing to drive in convoys in Iraq 3) accepting more recruits who show up at the bottom range of the test scores and 4) putting more recruiters out there.
You can also see the AP story [tinyurl.com] on the lowering of standards and one [tinyurl.com] the effect of bonuses and increased recruiters.
Posted by brunowe at 10/26/2006 @ 3:28pm
zero, perhaps the nation doesn't support an immediate withdrawal? and prefers a timetable?
or perhaps each and every writer at the nation doesn't agree with each other?
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2006 @ 3:33pm
Surely you are aware that Al Sadr is the leading figure in the Shia militias that are killing Sunni? Would there be an initial repercussion? Of course. That is why I didn't make that the only way to resolve the Sadr problem. Maliki is attempting to negotiate with him in order to reign in the Shia militias.
I'm aware that he's a leading figure, but his most recent action was a temporary takeover of Amara. That hardly sounds like he's going to stop going after Sunnis anytime soon. There's also a question as to how much control Sadr maintains given the escalation of Sunni-Shi'ite tensions. Maliki's ability to do anything is sharply limited by the fact that he requires Sadrist support in Parliament to sustain his paper tiger of a government.
Secondly, you actually believe that the Sunni and Shia will never agree on a revenue sharing program? You must hold them in very low regard Group 1 are the Baathists. Once Saddam is executed they are faced with negotiating a place at the table.
Group 2 are the Sunni's who are concerned about the oil revenues
Group 3 are those Sunni's who have aligned themselves with Al Qaeda. They will mostly be killed
The Shia efforts you mention will not detract from my point. It is an essential part of the process agreed to by the US, the UN, and the Arab League. The Shia really have no other choice eventually unless they take the suicidal step of being folded into Iran in a political and religious move.
They certainly have a choice not to do so. The fact that they are going forward with the procedure to create such a super-province indicates that they don't share your assumptions as to where their ultimate interest is. This has an effect on your Sunni group #2.
Also, the idea that Ba'athists will have no choice but to negotiate once Hussein is executed sounds a lot like the expections that Ba'athist insurgency would subside once Hussein had been captured. It didn't exactly work out that way. Re the Sunni Islamists mostly being killed, again the killing of Zarqawi doesn't seem to have stopped them much and US forces have been trying to kill most of them since Fallujah. Somehow more always come out of the woodwork.
But overwhelmingly when you speak with these heroes of our country, they want to be there, they want to serve, they believe in the cause.
Then why does the Pentagon still have to continue with its stop-loss program? For example, [tinyurl.com] reserve officers have been barred from leaving at the end of their terms under certain circumstances. There was also the use [tinyurl.com] of stop-loss to retain 50,000 troops at the beginning of the year and the recalling [tinyurl.com] discharged soldiers.
Posted by brunowe at 10/26/2006 @ 4:28pm
George Bush: "We were never stay the course"
Posted by LiberalPride at 10/26/2006 @ 4:37pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/26/2006 @ 3:47pm
RIO...just so we have it on record---
if the "will of the people" in the upcoming referendum is to make "killing babies" legal again....you going to RESPECT it as you ask "Demoncrats" to do in # 2???
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2006 @ 4:42pm
Whoa! The South doesnt support the troops to their death anymore? If you dont support the Disaster in Iraq, then you dont support the troops to their death.
Oh, there are some Conservative Republicans, still, who want the troops to DIE, to BE PERMANENTLY INJURED, over a pack of lies - in the Disaster of Iraq. Conservative Republicans still want to KILL Americans in Iraq over lies - but there are fewer and fewer of them. If George Bush "was never stay the course", then The South "was never stay the course either".
So, Conservative Republicans want to continue to SLAUGHTER Iraqis, Americans - innocent Iraqis - innocent Americans - people who never did anything to us. Conservative Republicans want to keep making America less safe, slaughtering troops, ordering troops to their death, ordering troops to lose limbs, to lose arms, to lose legs, to get Post Traumatic Disorder - but there are less and less people still stupid enough to go along with George Bushs Disaster.
Posted by LiberalPride at 10/26/2006 @ 4:44pm
But, Rio, I thought opposing the war "emboldened" the terrorists and all.
Yet, you are "thankful" for it?
Get your story straight.
Posted by Hman23 at 10/26/2006 @ 5:06pm
murtha doesn't support an immediate and total withdrawal, mr. walsh. furthermore, why should the nation put all of their endorsement eggs into the iraq war basket, and ignore all the other issues that 'pro-timetable withdrawal' candidates (or incumbents) might better address than 'pro-immediate and total withdrawal' candidates (or incumbents)?
the anti-war crowd often flatters itself in debates, insisting they have the edge in the battle of ideas, but when pressed to justify an immediate and total withdrawal, they simply can't admit the unmitigated disasater that would result. genocide is a distinct possibility. iran could move in and completely take over. who knows what would happen?
that's why i think we should withdrawal in 1 year, and in the meantime, build up international support in the region, and outside the region (like finding new military bases).
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2006 @ 6:35pm
Uh....
"The South is known for its strong support of the military"
So, Ms vanden Heuvel, what does that mean "the North" is known for, as far as support of the military?!?!?
Posted by MASK 10/26/2006 @ 1:03pm
that it is...not...as...supportive of the military...as the south? seems to be the default interpretation here.
whatever the nature of the source of the survey, as a natural born son of the south, i must say that attitudes toward the war and the republican party are changing. dead sons, daughters, husbands, wives, parents and friends tend to do that, especially when the true nature of the neocon political monster become unavoidably obvious.
the southern character is often irritatingly loyal and steadfast, beyond reason, and prone to emotional appeal over reason (see 1861-1865). thus the solid support for republican warmongering neocons, but when southerners begin to feel betrayed...watch out. you dont know what will happen. that emotionality is a double edged sword, capable of wounding its wielder...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/26/2006 @ 6:58pm
What a shock! A far left organization releases results from a poll it conducted showing people against the war.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/26/2006 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person
From the website at http://southernstudies.org/2006/10/south-and-iraq.asp
POLL: OPPOSITION TO IRAQ WAR GROWING IN SOUTHERN STATES
Region's attitudes marked by "sadness," reluctance to endure future war costs
DURHAM, N.C. – Despite strong early support for the Iraq war in the South, the region's opposition to the war now matches national levels –- and by some measures frustration is higher in the South than elsewhere in the country. Those are the findings of a new public opinion poll run by the Institute for Southern Studies and the School of Public and International Affairs at North Carolina State University.
So, just curious Leave Liberty, when did North Carolina State University become "a far left organization"?!?!?!?
Posted by Lillian at 10/26/2006 @ 7:36pm
oh brother, there goes zero on another one of his stereotypically paranoid rants. i know very well who mr. walsh is, that's why my comments were addressed to him. second, i support a phased withdrawal over the next 12 months, and a re-deployment to afghanistan as well as other military bases in jordan and kuwait, which is precisely what murtha wants. i DO NOT SUPPORT A TOTAL AND IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL, and you should note that MANY intelligent candidates, as well as current democratic officials, are with me on this one. third, just because i hold this view does NOT mean i support wholesale "another year of mass death, horror, and destruction in Iraq......and another year of American troops caught in the crossfire between warring religous, ethnic, and political factions" what it means is that i have weighed the options of:
a) a phased withdrawal over one year, doing everything we possibly can to plan for it, and shoring up as much support as possible in the meantime
vs
b) a total and immediate withdrawal. does zero actually think it would take 3 MONTHS to do this? please help me from falling off my chair. if the US military wants to get out in, heck, 48 hours.
and unfortunately, a is the better of two very awful options. why? because it would probably end up saving many more lives than it would destroy. it is VERY likely that iraq would descend into total anarchy with a total US withdrawal, which could mean genocide. is that something you can at least concede, zero?
and, hey zero, just WHAT IS your belief of what would happen with a total and immediatel withdrawal? describe the situation to me: politically, economically, and militarily. be honest. don't just say, "well, it's the right thing to do, because i'm anti-war" like vapid ned lamont. i want an honest assessement, not some half-baked, pseudo-rosy picture.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2006 @ 8:08pm
the NYT just wrote a wonderful op-ed about how it's time for more honestly on behalf of anti-war candidates who support what zero calls a 'total and immediate withdrawal'. many of these candidates are greens who have little to no understanding of foreign policy (and when i mean "little" i mean, say, they served in peace corps).
america needs a more honest, comprehensive strategy for withdrawal, other than 'total and immediatel withdrawal'. there are so many things that need to be done before that: how do we realistically contain the disaster (read: keeping it from spreading even more), and how to we prevent possible genocide like in the balkans? how do we regain the support of the people in the region, apart from leaving a HUGE mess?
here is the op-ed:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102406L.shtml
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2006 @ 8:19pm
for the record:
darla supports an immediate phased withdrawal, and out in 12 months.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2006 @ 8:23pm
so essentially, nation forum, what zero is saying is: ignore all of the qualities of anti-war candidates except for their position on the iraq war. even if they happen to be......republicans.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2006 @ 8:40pm
sorry, i meant to say:
support all anti-war candidates, even if they happen to be.....republicans.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2006 @ 8:43pm
Thanks to all who were interested in this poll. A little more background about the survey:
The poll was designed by the Institute for Southern Studies (where I'm director) in collaboration with two expert foreign policy pollsters, Assistant Professor Michael D. Cobb and Associate Professor William A. Boettcher III, both from the Department of Political Science in the School of Public and International Affairs at North Carolina State University.
The poll was administered by Knowledge Networks, Inc., a reputable and widely-used polling firms for scholarly research, and included 1,342 respondents. Many of the questions are similar to those used by the Pew Center and Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), and Profs. Cobb and Boettcher are now working on scholarly articles based on the poll's findings for peer-reviewed journals.
In short, it was truly a scholarly and dispassionate exercise; all the parties involved were interested in an accurate "read" of Southern opinion of the war, be it positive or negative.
The results were truly surprising. Perhaps most interesting was how much Southern attitudes towards Iraq now mirror national attitudes, when the South had previously been much more supportive (a fact we drew attention to in previous studies; again, we have no interest or benefit in understating or overstating Southern support for the war. What is most useful to all the parties involved is what's accurate.)
Thanks again, and I encourage all who are interested to check out more about the poll, and the Institute's previous research on the role of the South in the U.S. military, at www.southernstudies.org
Best, Chris
Chris Kromm Executive Director Institute for Southern Studies
Posted by ckromm at 10/26/2006 @ 9:25pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/26/2006 @ 9:05pm | ignore this person
The writings of Noam Chomsky, which primarily expose US government hypocrisy- while appealing to the application of universal standards of moral conduct-and Howard Zinn, writing a history inclusive of the common working American, minorities, native Americans, etc., would certainly appear as "fringe" to a sycophantic slug of militarism, corporatism, religious fundamentalism, and who so commonly displays a loathing of democracy when snidely dismissing polls in conflict with your personal positions.
best wishes,
Posted by Oustbush at 10/26/2006 @ 9:43pm
Darla,
I could accept a withdrawal over 12 months and I think that many other antiwar voters could as well. Unfortunately, we don't have a major party that supports us. Kerry sponsored a proposal to withdraw our troops over a period of 12 months, and the Senate Democrats helped to shoot it down by 86-13. Instead, most of the Dems supported a toothless resolution asking Bush to come up with a plan to redeploy our troops to other areas in the Middle East at some time in the future. To their credit, both of Hawaii's Senators voted yes, as did Kennedy, and I think Jeffords did as well.
Posted by green2006 at 10/26/2006 @ 10:16pm
Katrina,
I have to agree with Zero here. What's with the puff piece on Harold Ford in the latest issue of The Nation? There are plenty of antiwar Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Independents, and even a few Republicans running this year.
Posted by green2006 at 10/26/2006 @ 10:24pm
Apparently you and others misread "the south"! You might have the transplanted yankee citizenry pegged, but any dissatisfaction otherwise is with the lack of intensity in "laying waste" to our enemies! We have been itching to use Sherman's scorched earth tactics for over 100 years!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/26/2006 @ 8:57pm
Nice. No need to comment. Just making everyone read it twice, as a reminder of what really motivates a large percentage of "conservate, christian republicans".
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/26/2006 @ 10:28pm
Posted by CKROMM 10/26/2006 @ 9:25pm | ignore this person
Thank you for the clarification Chris Kromm.
Posted by Lillian at 10/26/2006 @ 10:49pm
Apparently you and others misread "the south"! You might have the transplanted yankee citizenry pegged, but any dissatisfaction otherwise is with the lack of intensity in "laying waste" to our enemies! We have been itching to use Sherman's scorched earth tactics for over 100 years!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/26/2006 @ 8:57pm
You want to use them on the "faggots" that you hate so much.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/26/2006 @ 11:08pm
Apparently you and others misread "the south"! You might have the transplanted yankee citizenry pegged, but any dissatisfaction otherwise is with the lack of intensity in "laying waste" to our enemies! We have been itching to use Sherman's scorched earth tactics for over 100 years!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/26/2006 @ 8:57pm
so what's stopping you?
perhaps... fear?
Posted by Will C. at 10/26/2006 @ 11:20pm
petrifying, heart stopping, pants shitting fear?
Posted by Will C. at 10/26/2006 @ 11:21pm
Ah - so Rio is not against gay marriage, indeed, he's for it. Good for you.
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/26/2006 @ 11:12pm
---------------------------------
As long as they are performed in the appropriate settings by ordained satanic priests! It would not be acceptable to attempt to make God, his church, or his son a party to such blasphemy.
Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/26/2006 @ 11:41pm
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2006 @ 12:17am
the thepole of the south have an opportunity this november to show the nation that they won't blindly follow the republican lead even when they disagree with republican actions.
if red states swing blue in the congressional elections, then we will know that southerners are able to not only think for themselves but also act on those thoughts.
If they still vote republican... then they have made themselves into a party of slaves.
a fitting end for the posterity of slaveowners, don't you think?
Posted by Will C. at 10/27/2006 @ 12:18am
correction... the people of the south
Posted by Will C. at 10/27/2006 @ 12:19am
Rio wrote: "Just can't get over being snookered into misapproriating the colloquialism that drew you into that fallacious error can you?"
Where's the "misappropriation" when you say gay marriage is "blasphemy" and that it should be officiated by "satanic priests"? Of course you meant "faggot" in its pejorative use against gay people.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2006 @ 12:20am
"Just can't get over being snookered into misapproriating the colloquialism that drew you into that fallacious error can you?"
Glad to see you haven't misappropriated your thesaurus. Your double entendre covers you nicley in that post. Well done.
However, all of your other posts, expose you. You have a long, archived history, in your own words, of being a hatefilled bigot.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/27/2006 @ 12:25am
Eric --- you're line "Glad to see you haven't misappropriated your thesaurus" made me spit out my beer. Funniest line of any thread I've read today. Congrats!
And Rio is clearly a hate-filled bigot, which was my point in pursuing him all along.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2006 @ 12:30am
.
THE SWIFTBOATING OF "EXIT POLLING"
Last night it started. CNN's Jeff Greenfield was interviewed about the forthcoming elections, and his parting comment at the end of the segment was what would have appeared to be an off-handed disparaging remark about the reliability of Exit Polls.
Greenfield was/is shilling for Rove – and this was a TALKING POINT ordered up by Rove. "Exit Polling" had not been part of the prior discussion, but was something that he slipped in at the end of the segment – as if ordered to do so.
Rove has been interviewed in recent days proclaiming that HIS polling (which he proclaims nobody else has access to and is superior to all other polling data) portrays the key races to be very close, not nearly the blowouts that the REALITY BASED COMMUNITY is seeing.
THIS IS A SET UP.
If you are going to STEAL AN ELECTION VIA VOTE RIGGING – you need to lay the ground work – planting doubt in the minds of the electorate through the media shills.
Exit polling has been a reliable method by which to approximate the result of elections prior to the final votes being tallied. Exit polling has only been called into question in the last two election cycles – but ONLY because the Exit Polling data were not confirmed by the final "official" vote tally. As has now been proven, it was not the Exit Polling data that was inaccurate or unreliable, it was the reporting of the Official Total" that had been tampered with.
It's time to TAKE THE OFFENSIVE where Exit Polling is concerned and reveal this Swiftboating of "Exit Polling" for what it is – a Rovian sham designed specifically to condition the electorate to disbelieve the exit poll results (which will portray the house and Senate going under Democratic Control), and rather to only believe the "Official" (FALSE) vote count.
The Mainstream Media is fully complicit in the Rovian Brainwashing campaign to discredit "Exit Polling" as unscientific hoohah, when in fact it is the smoking gun EVIDENCE of election fraud used throughout the world. Ask International Elections Observers about the value of Exit Polling.
The GOP has employed a firm called Penn, Schoen, & Berland to skew exit poll results in the past in order to achieve their own political ends. Watch out for this firm's exit poll results in this years elections. They are on Rove's payroll:
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=70727
Electoral Fraud Is the First Step on the Road to Tyranny
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=70456
Read the link above – GREAT ARTICLE.
.
Posted by plunger at 10/27/2006 @ 07:49am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/26/2006 @ 11:41pm
Do you infer that your God doesn't love gay people?
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/27/2006 @ 08:27am
Posted by DARLADOON 10/26/2006 @ 8:08pm ...I atually agree with that, and believe it is well thought out, and rooted in reality. Good luck convincing Zilch of that though. Since he has everyone on Ignore, he's convinced that his answer is the better of a grand total of 2 that he's heard.
Posted by Sliver at 10/27/2006 @ 08:29am
Denegration is always a faithful solice for many!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/27/2006 @ 01:26am
Ain't it though? I mean, you of all people, ought to know.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/27/2006 @ 08:59am
Denegration is always a faithful solice for many!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/27/2006 @ 01:26am
war, lies, treachery...
yup.. the denigration of our world has become the hamster faith rio
Posted by Will C. at 10/27/2006 @ 09:36am
but there's not as many of you as there used to be
Posted by Will C. at 10/27/2006 @ 09:37am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/26/2006 @ 6:58pm
IBBLE, I'd love to see another interpretation of what Ms vanden Heuvel wrote in the first line of this artcle.
If "the South is known for its strong support of the military"...what DOES that mean for the North then?
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2006 @ 09:41am
Mask, here it is in english. it presumably means that the north is NOT particularly known for their strong support etc. this may or may not be true, and it may or may not be what Katrina intended, or she would have said so, but it is implied, by singling out the south in this way. howzat?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 09:48am
Secondly, you actually believe that the Sunni and Shia will never agree on a revenue sharing program? You must hold them in very low regard.
I do, they have not shown me any reason to do otherwise. the revenue sharing is only one issue tearing apart Iraq. Sectarian issues centuries old are another. the raging civil war is a time for the settling of scores, revenge and counter revenge are what's playing out there. "and we healped"
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 10:15am
"... it presumably means that the north is NOT particularly known for their strong support etc. this may or may not be true, and it may or may not be what Katrina intended..."
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/27/2006 @ 09:48am
"may or may not"...Ms vanden Heuvel is generally credited as a somewhat decent writer and intellectual. Doesn't she know how to write things that aren't so "ambigious"?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2006 @ 10:50am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/27/2006 @ 10:15am
Can I assume this "Secondly" post was NOT addressed to me, since I haven't even mentioned the Shiia, Sunni, or revenue sharing lately?
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2006 @ 10:51am
Mask, it's not all about you, I know this may come as a shock to you. the first sentence is a quote, I carelessly omitted the quotation marks. it was addressed to Liberty
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 10:59am
mask,"may or may not"...Ms vanden Heuvel is generally credited as a somewhat decent writer and intellectual. Doesn't she know how to write things that aren't so "ambigious"?!?!?!
again sniping at your betters?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 11:00am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/27/2006 @ 11:00am
"my betters"?!?!?!?....not very egalitarian sounding, from somebody on the Left, JOHANN!
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2006 @ 11:04am
like an umpire at a baseball game, I calls them as I sees them.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 11:21am
.not very egalitarian sounding,
you may be on to something here, Mask. I make no pretensions on sounding egalitarian. on brief reflection I can report that I believe in an aristocracy of the mind. in other words, I divide humanity in two classes, those who read books and those who don't.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 11:24am
As a 6th generation "Fla-Va" of the month Southerner maternally and a fourth or fifth generation Illini and Army Sergeant patrilinearly, I'm thrilled to see any reduction in the "military madness" we've endured since Cain "took out" Abel.
Posted by lewwelge at 10/27/2006 @ 11:38am
Posted by LEWWELGE 10/27/2006 @ 11:38am
Could I get an EXACT definition of what you consider "military madness"?
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2006 @ 12:08pm
Could I get an EXACT definition of what you consider "military madness"?
Posted by MASK 10/27/2006 @ 12:08am
Only you, Mask, in todays political climate and neverending complaints about the "war president", would even think any clarification is necessary.
As to ambiguity in these blogs. Maybe it was a gift to you. Imagine if there was no wedge for you to spin? We'd have to stay on topic.
Or, maybe, KVH was trying to point out the obvious fact that conservatives wave the flag over anything the military does, without even thinking about questioning it. (conformity is a basis for modern American conservatism.) And the south has more conservatives per capita, than the north.
Maybe the "ambiguity" you detect, was tact. Trying to allude to the aforemention obviousness, without side tracking us on a cultural north/south thing.
Maybe, this just proves KVH doesn't read these threads. Otherwise, she may not have bothered, knowing you were gonna be here to spin whatever you can find, off topic.
Speaking of which, perhaps you could go to the stem-cell thread, and give me a response that is...well... responsive?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/27/2006 @ 1:16pm
Dont pay any attention to the Disgrace in the White House, or the Disaster in Iraq, or your taxes which werent reduced in 6 years, or the HOMOSEXUALS LIKE KEN MEHLMAN* in the GOP, dont pay any attention to crates of fresh minted $100 "bricks" being burned in Iraq, forget about Hurricane Katrina & Homeland Security.
* Ken Mehlman, Gay, is the Chairman of the Republican Party
Posted by LiberalPride at 10/27/2006 @ 1:57pm
I'm glad to see Zero brought that up....
http://brickburner.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/10/open_letter_to_.html
is where it is (if you don't want to scroll for it) and now I'd like to add that, since I can't comment on Schell's article "The Torture Election" directly under it.....SOMEBODY needs to point out what a bunch of crap this article is: If this is "the Torture Election," then why can't Schell cite some examples of Democrats actually running on this issue? No, instead he mentions that Republicans are often mentioning it. Schell, for this to be "the Torture Election" (as opposed to the "Jesus Are These Guys A Bunch of Freaks" election)(or for some, perhaps, the "What Was I Thinking?" election), it is necessary that the Democrats not just stay silent but actually stand up for these values.
Of course, and we have no way of knowing if any of these legislative obscenities will be thrown out by a Democrat-dominated legislature. So we are supposed to vote out the Republicans for their crimes against the constitution, and are supposed to ignore the Democrats unwillingness to seriously fight these crimes (not to mention plenty of active support).
But rah, rah, Democrats. Yeah, I hope they win too, so I don't want to hear about how much worse the Republicans are.
The point is, fuck your low expectations, Democrats, and The Nation.
Posted by Vic Perry at 10/27/2006 @ 2:51pm
"The point is, fuck your low expectations, Democrats, and The Nation."
hey, it's a free country, go ahead and vote green. nobody's stopping you.
and why does anyone (even zero) want to support a political party?
like nietzsche said, madness is rare in individuals, but in nations and parties, it is the rule.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2006 @ 2:59pm
Vic, whatta charmer you are. with those manners you'll go far. just not on my blog.ignored
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 3:27pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 10/27/2006 @ 1:16pm
First....Ms vanden Heuvel used the line "the South is known for its strong support of the military", not me.
I asked for clarification of the OBVIOUS counter-balance to that, which would seem to be that "the North" is NOT "known for its strong support of the military". If I said "The North and West Coast are known for their strong support of gay rights"...what would the OBVIOUS mirror be, Eric?
Second, let's look at LEWWELGE's statement "I'm thrilled to see any reduction in the "military madness" we've endured since Cain "took out" Abel."---Posted by LEWWELGE 10/27/2006 @ 11:38am
Now, what does one make of THAT? That he's talking about Bush and Iraq?!?! "since Cain 'took out' Abel"? Or a more general criticism of the military or support of it.
Again...I asked for clarification.
Third...give me a chance, Eric. (on stem-cell thread) Despite what people think, I'm not waiting in breathless anticipation every moment of every second to respond to YOU or anybody else.
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2006 @ 3:28pm
Hey Vic Perry, how about the Green Party? Last I heard, Ralph Nader says theyre as bad as the Republicans and the Democrats.
Posted by LiberalPride at 10/27/2006 @ 3:41pm
I think that Northerners support the troops as much as Southerners and other sections of the country.
It's just that our loyalty has never been of the blind variety. My dad, a son of the South from Kentucky, sometimes wanted to kill me because I used to ask "Why?" when the military would send him off to do things like Vietnam, which I knew at 8-years-old was a waste of lives.
I'm glad to see that Southerners are starting to ask questions when it comes to the war. Most of the people going off to Iraq are leaving from the South, so it's about time that they started to ask those questions.
Now if they would start holding their politicians accountable, we'd be onto something.
Posted by edwriter at 10/27/2006 @ 4:36pm
Stay away from the weed once or twice a week and perhaps your delusions will disappear.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/26/2006 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person
Now what's wrong with a little bit of weed, LVLIBERTY1? Maybe if you smoked some, you'd have a better dispositon and would spew a little less vitriol.
But then again, you strike me as more of a Jack Daniels kind of person. That might be the problem. That stuff makes you violent.
Posted by edwriter at 10/27/2006 @ 4:39pm
I'll be grateful if the Dems win, no matter what the reason, but it amazes me that we Dems/liberals have to get our jollies from the fact that we now have the support of people who have voted for Bush and the Rs in the past but are now disillusioned with the war in Iraq. We Dems still don't articulate the reasons that we are the party of the people, that we stand for a vision of the US that the Rs don't: that we stand for universal health care, a fairer tax system, education improvement based on something other than silly edicts about leaving no child behind. We get the default votes of the disillusioned, so that the failure of the Iraq war redounds to our benefit. We have yet to articulate the liberals' vision that would bring us most votes even if the war in Iraq weren't a fiasco.
Posted by judym at 10/27/2006 @ 4:41pm
Facinating stuff as usual Mask.
Posted by Hman23 at 10/27/2006 @ 4:43pm
Zero, you CANNOT change the political culture by not voting. there are not now, nor have there ever been saints running for political office. politics is like negotiation. you cannot make everyone happy, but you can make them equally unhappy, hence a vote for the lesser of two "evils".
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 4:50pm
Posted by MASK 10/27/2006 @ 09:41am
it means u yankees are a bunch of military hating non grits eating wusses...yuk yuk yuk...
but seriously, even i had a brief, nonillustrious experience in the military. why? because my dad and all my uncles and my southern grandfather and great grandfathers and so on an so on and so on had served in some form of the military since before the revolution and i would have felt less than masculine had i not. once i was there, painting rocks grey (because according to the military, rocks are indeed grey, like sun yellow, sky blue, wood brown...rocks grey) i decided i had done my part in upholding my ancestral obligations and quietly served out my self imposed sentence, came home and blustered about all my military hardships and wondered why i had done it in the first place. oh yeah - thats just what you do down here.
maybe i hung out with too many of you chickenshit yankees...lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/27/2006 @ 4:55pm
the military can be an honorable profession, but it is not the pinnacle of civilization, nor is it the highest calling.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 5:17pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/27/2006 @ 5:17pm |
rocks are grey, JR, rocks are grey...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/27/2006 @ 5:19pm
the military can be an honorable profession, but it is not the pinnacle of civilization, nor is it the highest calling.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/27/2006 @ 5:17pm | ignore this person
Civilizations are unable to flourish without safety. Whether its the military, FBI, local police, whatever... you need to be able to protect yourself. Evolution in all species require this.
Exactly what is that you do that has changed the world so profoundly?
Posted by Zeddmen at 10/27/2006 @ 5:35pm
"I asked for clarification of the OBVIOUS counter-balance to that, which would seem to be that "the North" is NOT "known for its strong support of the military". If I said "The North and West Coast are known for their strong support of gay rights"...what would the OBVIOUS mirror be, Eric?"
Posted by MASK 10/27/2006 @ 3:28pm
Well, in spite of the fact that I like to be a smart ass, I am genuinely not, when I ask, how you formed that pargraph, which nicely encapsulates the answer to you own question, w/o actually knowing the answer to your own question.
And as far as patience, no problem. No answer means you have been busy. Non-responsive answers mean you are lazy, obsfucating or simply misread my question. It appears that one of the later is the case here.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/27/2006 @ 5:51pm
"I'm not waiting in breathless anticipation every moment of every second to respond to YOU"
:o(
How come?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/27/2006 @ 5:52pm
Rio Bravo wrote: "Denegration is always a faithful solice for many!"
You meant "solace" of course --- but that's no biggie. But your statement certainly applies to yours and others homophobia.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2006 @ 5:52pm
So I've discovered how to actually get people to respond to my very, very occasional posts here: use the f word.
But alas, the substance of my post is about as attended to as that in a Hugo Chavez speech at the U.N. (Zero and judym excepted)
But you guys sure showed that maasch and lvlbrt and maaask. And the Nation sure is good at showing those Democrats aren't as bad as those Republicans.
Posted by Vic Perry at 10/27/2006 @ 5:56pm
If "the South is known for its strong support of the military"...what DOES that mean for the North then?
Posted by MASK 10/27/2006 @ 09:41am
Mask - I can't say for sure exactly what KVH meant, but I interpret that statement to mean blind faith, virtually religious in its character. I don't think that can be applied to all individuals, but if stereotyping large groups has any utility (which of course it does - I present as evidence the entire history of American politics!) then that's what I would say is the difference KVH means between the "north" and the "south."
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2006 @ 5:56pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 10/27/2006 @ 1:16pm
Eric - best post of the thread.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2006 @ 5:59pm
Mask wrote: "I asked for clarification of the OBVIOUS counter-balance to that, which would seem to be that "the North" is NOT "known for its strong support of the military". If I said "The North and West Coast are known for their strong support of gay rights"...what would the OBVIOUS mirror be, Eric?"
If it's "OBVIOUS" then why are you looking for answers to rhetorical questions?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2006 @ 6:01pm
Edwriter wrote in response to LL: "But then again, you strike me as more of a Jack Daniels kind of person. That might be the problem. That stuff makes you violent."
LL, of course, will tell you he doesn't drink anymore. That was what he did before he was re-born. Now he's on "the right side of god." Cliched to a t!
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2006 @ 6:04pm
mmmmm...hotdogs.
Posted by Malcontent at 10/27/2006 @ 6:52pm
mmmmm...hotdogs.
Posted by MALCONTENT 10/27/2006 @ 6:52pm
no, BARBEQUED hot dogs. even better.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/27/2006 @ 6:55pm
english spelling - an oximoron
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/27/2006 @ 7:01pm
Zedd, that is an absurd question. we are talking about the military, not me. I value someone who saves lives by working for peace higher than a warrior, as necessary a warrior might be. what you or I do for a living is not germane to the discussion, unless you are a soldier who feels slighted.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 7:32pm
But, I don't like spam!
(Sorry, this thread was missing it's obligatory Monte Python reference).
Posted by Malcontent at 10/27/2006 @ 7:54pm
LL, of course, will tell you he doesn't drink anymore. That was what he did before he was re-born. Now he's on "the right side of god." Cliched to a t!
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/27/2006 @ 6:04pm
Are you referring to the 45 minute death/resurrection? I thought that said 'experience' made him a member of the undead.
Posted by skeletonman at 10/27/2006 @ 7:58pm
what's more, darla seems unable to accept the reality that US troops in Iraq are a *cause* of increasing violence, not a factor keeping violence down.
Posted by ZERO 10/26/2006 @ 7:28pm
Zero,
I have to stay calm on this one, but I have to just say to you that you do not seem to understand that our troops are not the cause of these terrorists' attacks. We are fighting people willing to put their babies to death just to kill the USA Devils.....does that sound like a country we need to "leave alone"? They are choosing to come after us, they have more freedoms now than they have had since the Bathists took over...go back and look into how long it took for us to leave Germany...and that is when we knew who we were fighting...they followed some sort of similance of an army. This is way more difficult and will take quite some time to get settled. You can't establish a democracy in 3 or 4 years.
****sliding my soapbox out of the way and giving the kids a bath**** night, folks
Posted by BonzoStomp at 10/27/2006 @ 10:32pm
don't short change luvvy. He was dead for six hours
Posted by Will C. at 10/27/2006 @ 11:06pm
Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Posted by Will C. at 10/27/2006 @ 11:06pm
Posted by BONZOSTOMP 10/27/2006 @ 10:32pm | ignore this person
I disagree on everything. Iraqis did not attack us, they won't come after us when we leave. neither the war against Germany nor the occupation of same bears any resemblance to the Iraq fiasco. we are not in Iraq to create a democracy, that was the ex post facto excuse, when the WMD lies were exposed. did I miss anything?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 11:18pm
There isn't ONE arab country that has a functioning democracy. those countries have been around since 1918. should we attack and occupy all of them indefinitely to establish democracy?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 11:20pm
"Maasch, here's what I suggest. you pick the time. when you get to Markt tell the maitr D that you are expecting someone, and hang out at the bar nearby the maitre D. I will ask him to point you out to me when I get there. in that neighborhood there are many restaurant choices. OK?"
I think around 6 or 7 pm..is that ok?
Posted by john maasch at 10/27/2006 @ 11:20pm
Which time JR?
Posted by john maasch at 10/27/2006 @ 11:31pm
Maasch and Rolf - can't you both create temporary free email addresses on yahoo or msn or something to do all of this personal meeting b.s. somewhere else so the rest of us are spared? I'm tired of reading about your plans to meet...and by the way, I'm already tired, in advance, about hearing about each of your thoughts of your meeting.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2006 @ 11:54pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/27/2006 @ 11:54pm
Sounds like somebody needs a nap.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/28/2006 @ 12:01am
Hehe. You see, Eric is taking my use of "tired" and sarcastically saying I'm physically sleepy. You smart guy you.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2006 @ 12:15am
Eric - why do you sign off on every post with what is evidently your first name? Why not change your moniker to your name?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2006 @ 12:18am
Gyro, I am truly sorry for carrying out this private conversation in public. it will not happen again. I had assumed a more collegial atmosphere here, and there are many, many more trivial conversations that have gone on here uncriticised. you are always free to ignore me or Maasch.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/28/2006 @ 12:30am
Gyro,here is the revised version of my reply, by all means do go and fuck yourself.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/28/2006 @ 08:18am
don't short change luvvy. He was dead for six hours
Posted by WILL C. 10/27/2006 @ 11:06pm
OK Willie but what's your excuse?
(Back in the best country in the world. Europe is in the shit in many ways. On the way home was talking to a 35 y.o. Dutchman who fell in love with "my country" when backpacking here some years ago. He's just become one of us along with his Dutch wife. Said nothing in Europe compares with the lifestyle and opportunities here. He reckons that multiculturalism in the Netherlands has destroyed freedom of speech and helped stuff the country up in various other ways. That, for him, was a major reason in deciding to leave the country of his birth and where he had lived until three years ago).
Have been observing in a more leisurely way from the other side of the world and noticed that the tide seems to be turning back in favour of the GOP in the Senate? Still think Bush is a superb pollie (not too intellectual for the masses) and it would be no surprise if he helps pull off the double. If the Dems do take the House, wouldn't be shocked to see the Dem hawks push for a quicker "victory" in Iraq. Think the stakes are too high for US ME policy, on both sides, to withdraw before securing some of the present objectives. Several of the Dems, in interviews shown here, are a lot more in tune with Bush's revised war goals than I had imagined but they would like to see the conflict pursued in a "better" and bi-partisan way.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/28/2006 @ 09:41am
Posted by MALCONTENT 10/27/2006 @ 5:51pm and URMY
Again...it's Ms vanden Heuvel's comment.
Now, do I just GUESS that she meant something "good" and not something "bad"?
"Bad" in the sense that "The North IS NOT usually known for strong support of the military"?
The woman has SOME reputation as good writer and intellectual...so why is she presenting such ideas "by default"?!??!
Posted by Mask at 10/28/2006 @ 10:07am
mask, this quite pitiful. you are barely a pimple on Katrina's cute butt.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/28/2006 @ 10:20am
OK Willie but what's your excuse?
Posted by QuagmireJONES4 10/28/2006 @ 09:41am
wow quagmire. Unable to make an argument, you've fallen to putting nothing into sentence form.
Posted by Will C. at 10/28/2006 @ 10:34am
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/28/2006 @ 12:15am
That I am. (My trick is to get plenty of sleep.).
Why do a few converstional threads, amongst the large percentage of off topic posts (like this one) bother you?
"Eric - why do you sign off on every post with what is evidently your first name? Why not change your moniker to your name?"
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/28/2006 @ 12:18am
I am malcontent on every website or forum I have to sign up for. (Picked it at random in Jan. 2000 and I liked it. Plus, for some obscure reason, I kinda like the moniker "Mal"). But, I also like to type my name here, because many others are using their name and I feel compelled to attach my name to my views. Even when I am calling someone an idiot, it is still somewhat personable around here. (Except some people, who like to complain about it). ;o)
Bob
Posted by Malcontent at 10/28/2006 @ 11:30am
hey if the south supports the military, does that include the south west?
and does that mean the south south west supports the military twice as much as the south, or does the west modify their support in some way?
Posted by Will C. at 10/28/2006 @ 11:32am
Bob
Posted by MALCONTENT 10/28/2006 @ 11:30am
Ha Ha Ha Ha
oh... it's you Bob
Posted by Will C. at 10/28/2006 @ 11:33am
Thanks for the quick support, Malcontent, upthread, to Mask's seemingly more instinctually reflexive demand for definition of what I meant by the term "military madness." Like any irrational behavior, misprioritization of any actions, resources, even thoughts (obsessions or willful ignorance), is at least wasteful and likely harmful to the organism or species. Home sapiens' natural interest in survival has transmogrified into obsessiveness because of the seductivity of power, in my opinion.
So, choose to call it what Ike did: "military-industrial complex," or what some rock poets have termed it: "military madness" (CSN&Y?) or "war hogs" (the "space cowboy, Steve(?) ?), or what the historical Jesus was said to have said, just what "the Romans" do, whatever the euphemism it's the same menacing meaning.
I think it was Dr. King or Ghandhi or an equivalent "old soul" who said one/we cannot simultaneously prepare for war and peace.
Swords into plowshares is the direction predicted millenia ago for the continued "dawning" of this Age of Aquarius.
Peace be with you (a sa a se lum aleikum (Sp?)
Posted by lewwelge at 10/28/2006 @ 12:27pm
Lew, an even better term is congressional military industrial complex. that was what Eisenhower apparently had in the draft of the speech, and they took it out. the founding fathers did not believe in permanent war, they did not believe in standing armies. after WW1, the nation de-mobilized. after WW2 they decided to screw us permanently, and so for 60 years the military has bled us dry.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/28/2006 @ 12:58pm
ok, then, if not nancy pelosi......then......krissy keefer? former interpretive dancer from san francisco with the following platform:
*troops out immediately (but doesn't care to address the consequences openly---such as the very real possibility of many more iraqis dying the in the streets, with power drill holes in their eyeballs; or iran moving in and taking over; of possible GENOCIDE, something zero won't concede might very well happen)
*impeachment of the president and vice president (which would put zero's hero in the top seat: nancy pelosi. sure you still want impeachment, zero? and why ignore nancy's 'first 100 hours' plan which WOULD put new tax laws, health care policies, accountability for iraq/katrina, election reform, etc, on the table. does krissy keefer have such a plan? no).
*universal health care (now this is something i'm for)
Posted by darladoon at 10/28/2006 @ 1:07pm
But hey! Let's all be happy and not worry! Strong, passionate WOMEN like Nanci Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are gaining power in the US! Such pride we can take in our advanced, "progressive" political system, where WOMEN are making such advances and strides!
And gay people will get married soon! Oh boy!
how does one respond to this?
Posted by darladoon at 10/28/2006 @ 1:12pm
it seems readily apparent that zero is not willing to listen to anything that gets in the way of his vision for society. he is not willing to concede the consequences of a green party sweep at the polls come november 7th; the consequences of an immediate pull-out in iraq; the consequences of withdrawing ALL support to israel; etc.
zero, we all want change, but you gotta be honest about the bad side of change, too......
i'll take lesser of two evils UNTIL we get back to the center. we are so far right now.....that pushing all the way far left would cause disaster....
Posted by darladoon at 10/28/2006 @ 1:17pm
Gyro,here is the revised version of my reply, by all means do go and fuck yourself.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/28/2006 @ 08:18am
As long as I don't have to read anymore about the logistics of your meeting with a fellow anonymous blogger I'd be happy to "go fuck myself" any time.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2006 @ 1:38pm
Maasch is not an anonymous blogger, he uses his real name, as do I. you gotta lotta nerve to bitch, considering the variety of off topic posts that are current here. and you put me through all kinds of absurd changes with the contract discussion, all nonsense. but that is all water under the bridge.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/28/2006 @ 1:45pm
JR - don't you have packing to do for your blind date?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2006 @ 2:20pm
Real names - that's easy to say. We don't know that's the truth. Are we suppose to take that on faith? Now you're sounding worse than LL (and, oh yeah, you actively participated in the religion dialogue on this and many other threads)
Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2006 @ 2:23pm
no, I live here, all I do is get on a train downtown. let's keep this on one thread or let it go entirely, before we annoy others.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/28/2006 @ 2:24pm
Uh....
"The South is known for its strong support of the military"
So, Ms vanden Heuvel, what does that mean "the North" is known for, as far as support of the military?!?!?
Posted by MASK 10/26/2006 @ 1:03pm | ignore this person
Uh...
Stating a fact about the South...
...doesn't LOGICALLY imply anything at all about the North!
That's another in the growing list of Mask's logical fallacies...
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/illisubs.html
Posted by Lillian at 10/28/2006 @ 3:55pm
BTW, trying to reduce the KVH article to some 11 words and then incorrectly trying to claim that those 11 words imply ligical inconsistency that they don't, in a lame attempt to impugn Katrina's literary or intellectual reputation, while simply ignoring the central fact of her article (which concerns the fact the Southerners appear to be turning against the war) is just a really tired, tired tactic.
Of course, it doesn't surprise me at all. Mask is actively trying the same tactic to slam John Nichols over on the "The Swiftboating of Michael J. Fox" thread.
Pathetic.
Posted by Lillian at 10/28/2006 @ 4:04pm
lillian, mask doesn't actually read the posts. he just reads the headlines, and then races to post the first comment.....not a very thoughtful guy, mask.
Posted by darladoon at 10/28/2006 @ 5:47pm
"if red states swing blue in the congressional elections, then we will know that southerners are able to not only think for themselves but also act on those thoughts.
If they still vote republican... then they have made themselves into a party of slaves. "
I believe if the blue staes swing red, then they will demonstrate they are capable of thinking for themselves and can act on their thoughts...
If they still vote democratic then they have made themselves ion a party of slaves(ie Black vote going 90% dem?) Isn't the definition of lunacy describedn as doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result..?
KOOK
Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2006 @ 01:55am
"JR - don't you have packing to do for your blind date?
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/28/2006 @ 2:20pm "
Problem of some sort we should know about?
Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2006 @ 01:55am
Isn't the definition of lunacy describedn as doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result..?
KOOK
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/29/2006 @ 01:55am | ignore this person
Another definition of insanity is where you think you're the only sane one and everybody else is a...
...kook!
Posted by Lillian at 10/29/2006 @ 02:01am
Posted by LILLIAN 10/28/2006 @ 3:55pm
If it's a "fact" that "the South is known for its strong support of the military"...
then by extension, doesn't that mean that OTHER regions are LESS known for their strong support...or known for LESS strenuous support?
Point...my friends...is that Ms vanden Heuvel let her OWN view of the South and support for the military out of the bag. That of a region of the country that she is not from, perhaps is even a bit disparaging of....and the "goodness" of the idea of supporting the military strongly.
And I think most here know that.
The Left does NOT "strongly support" the military. And this is no stereotype. Who pushes for defense cuts, is more pacifistic, and more dubious of military officers (if not the enlisted personnel) when charges of war crimes come about?
This is no hit on them...they're entitled to that opinion if they like (and in ignorance of history).
If Ms vanden Heuvel had written an article starting with "The South known for its strong support of conservatism"...and I had asked "So, does that mean 'the North' is known for its strong support of liberalism"....probably wouldn't have gotten too much of a fight on that point.
But add a DIFFERENT component..."support of the military"...and ask the same corresponding point....and you guys go nutty trying to assuage the old stereotype (or not) of "who's less supportive of the military".
And the worst part is, without "asssumptions" about what Ms vanden Heuvel "really meant", she actually makes the case.
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2006 @ 10:35am
And now, for a little twisted humor!
Bush video [fwd.jokeroo.com]
Posted by Turk33 at 10/29/2006 @ 10:59am
Posted by MASK 10/29/2006 @ 10:35am
"then by extension, doesn't that mean that OTHER regions are LESS known for their strong support...or known for LESS strenuous support?..."
Duh. You'll figure it out...just keep saying the obvious out loud, until it sinks in.
"...And the worst part is, without "asssumptions" about what Ms vanden Heuvel "really meant", she actually makes the case."
Sorry you were the only one who struggled so hard, to surmount these overblown(in your mind) "assumptions", before you finally could see the gist of her post.
Most of us got it right away. Even those who disagreed. (Maybe, instead of reading these posts faster that everyone else, you should focus on comprehension and overall meaning.)
Works for me, anyway. To each his own.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/29/2006 @ 11:26am
Turk
LOL.....
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/29/2006 @ 1:25pm
Surprise--Surprise--The RED-STATE-BILLIES don't want to admit they are RED-STATE-BILLIES anymore!!! Hmmmm!!! Tommie27
Posted by Tommie27 at 10/29/2006 @ 1:47pm
Mask, this whole application of logical thinking really isn't something you seem to 'get', is it?
First this logical fallacy...
"The South is known for its strong support of the military"
So, Ms vanden Heuvel, what does that mean "the North" is known for, as far as support of the military?!?!?
Posted by MASK 10/26/2006 @ 1:03pm | ignore this person
...then you tried to cover it with this...
If it's a "fact" that "the South is known for its strong support of the military"...
then by extension, doesn't that mean that OTHER regions are LESS known for their strong support...or known for LESS strenuous support?
Posted by MASK 10/29/2006 @ 10:35am | ignore this person
FOr the record Mask, the writers comment noted above concerns the south ONLY and doesn't imply anything at all for the north. And, your "...by extension..." is equally wrong.
Try this statement...
Santa Cruz is known for surfing.
By your 'logic' that must mean Waikiki is somehow LESS known for surfing?!?!?!?
Sounds pretty supid doesn't it? That's because it's founded on a logical fallacy.
Posted by Lillian at 10/29/2006 @ 4:45pm
All that twisting and turning of illogic to attack the author as if she's suddenly turned into some kind of an idiot...like this gem from your 10/27/06 10:50am post...
"Doesn't she know how to write things that aren't so "ambigious"?!?!?!"
...and subsequent posts where you're trying to call into questions her "reputation as a good writer and intellectual"
Of course, NOW that the 'logic' behind that 'point' has been completely blown away, you've switched to this new 'point'...that this comment "The South is known for its strong support of the military" somehow 'reveals' that she has a poor opinion of the south.
SAY WHAT?!?!?!?
Here's a thought Mask...instead trying to invent more of your bullshit 'Mask-boxes' to attack the author, why not try just addressing the 'actual' premise of the article which is that political attitudes are changing against the Republicans, even in their modern strongholds like the south.
Posted by Lillian at 10/29/2006 @ 4:47pm
Nice picture of you here Mask...
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/illisubs.html
Posted by Lillian at 10/29/2006 @ 4:49pm
It will be very interesting to see how things play out in November. Let's revisit this topic on the 18th.
Posted by Person at 10/29/2006 @ 8:35pm
Yeah Johann, congressional complicity in the outrageous and immoral prioritization of what J.K. Rowling allegorically terms "death eat(ing)" is depressing.
I didn't know of Ike's intention to "out" this.
As a long-time supporter of Common Cause's efforts to clean up our slimy, cut-throat and currupt money dominated means of awarding elective office too frequently to the least ethical aspirants to "public office," I believe a systemic change is necessary. After Democrats gain the majority of both houses hopefully, so they/we can thoroughly investigate, impeach and imprison these fascistic "dittoheads."
Posted by lewwelge at 10/30/2006 @ 07:09am
....so again, we're back to the old question to those on the Left..."Would you accept the 'non-partisan' survey results from the CATO Institute or the Heritage Foundation", if it disagreed with your political views!?!?
Posted by MASK 10/26/2006 @ 2:49pm
Would I accept survey results if they "disagreed with" my political views?
I didn't know survey results had views.
Perhaps you mean, if the results showed that not everyone agreed with my political views?
So you claim that the public is not unanimously united on all political issues, and wonder if I accept that?
Why, I am shocked - SHOCKED!!! I cannot possibly accept that preposterous notion.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/30/2006 @ 09:42am
I didn't know survey results had views.
in this atmosphere the very truth has a partisan agenda. it's c;ear that facts are infiltrated by liberals. we need a truth squad to stamp out these traitors.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 10:48am
a stooge willing to lie , sending your off to die.. no need to comtemplate when your living in the 51st state
what's the 51st state , it's the state of denial , and it's good to know that even in the south , they're making the the hard journey back and are ready to face the ugly truth , Bush's war of choice was a bad choice , and there's no easy way to make good. ...www.longlosthome.com
Posted by joemes at 10/30/2006 @ 10:52am
zero, how many times will you evade my question:
what will happen to iraq in the even of an immediate and total withdrawal?
describe the situation from the point of view of an average iraqi living in baghdad. some cities in iraq are being taken over in broad daylight, as the result of US pullout. people are being dragged from their homes, mutilated, raped and killed. clearly, with some US presence, this is less likely to happen.
i concede that staying in iraq is stupid, but leaving immediately is also stupid. if you would at least admit the same, then we can get somewhere.
and would you please stop harping about pelosi? and could you also tell me why how having a (mostly liberal) san francisco woman in a serious position of power would be worse than, say, dennis hastert? or, gasp, clueless krissy keefer?
Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2006 @ 12:38pm
let's have some fun and look at the world through zero's goggles:
a green party sweep of the house and senate. an immediate and total withdrawal from iraq. the immediate and total withdrawal of afghanistan (what's the difference between afghanistan and iraq right now? nothing. so might as well pull out, right?) the impeachment of bush and cheney. krissy keefer as president. ned lamont as speaker. a completely clueless and inept green party congress, who can definitely handle environmental issues, and clean up the elections, but besides that?
zero, please enlighten us. what would your world look like in the best of all worlds?
Posted by darladoon at 10/30/2006 @ 12:42pm
what's the 51st state
the 51sr state is New York City.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 1:44pm
JRolf - if a woman takes crack cocaine throughout her pregnancy why in the world should the legislature be allowed to punish her? I mean, she was pregnant when she was taking dangerous, illegal drugs, so that gives her immunity from being punsihed for the crime (the crime was probably defined, written and passed by mostly men, let's be honest - and since they are men, they can't, by your logic, have any say over criminalizing what a woman does with her body when she's pregnant).
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 1:48pm
what is this doing on THIS rhread?
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 2:15pm
Feel free to answer the question - if you dare!!!
Or would you prefer folks to not know that you believe pregnant women who take illegal, harmful, drugs, and put the fetus at risk of severe harm, shouldn't be punsihed.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 3:43pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/30/2006 @ 3:43pm
Your logical viewpoint, rational thought processes and smart-ass combacks to the clueless are in danger of being nullified, by your apparent, recently aquired vendetta against JR. (A man who, while sometimes abrasive and arrogant, shares more of your politcal views than most here. Pure speculation, of course, as I personally know neither of you. Just based on what you post here).
Not to mention, you were the one complaining about off topic posts... Probably should stay out of it, but what the hell, I am a malcontent and I have no righties to bitch at.
Seriously man, lighten up.
Eric
PS. JR, you are welcome, for the faint praise. ;o)
Posted by Malcontent at 10/30/2006 @ 8:41pm
that's OK, Eric. and thanks.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 9:04pm
Eric - JRolf has made no reasoned arugments for why any man should not be able to argue for the criminlization of abortion beyond - "you don't know what pregnancy is, you'll never experience it, so back off." I do agree with JRolf that abortion should remain legalized forever. I think it's definitely sad if a woman gets an abortion, but life isn't easy, that's for sure. And I'd rather be in a world with a right to choice rather than no choice. What rankles me about JRolf is that I posed pointed question after pointed question - all of which he refuses to address - he simply states over and over, like a religious fantatic would - that men are misogynists for even discussing abortion not being a right. For someone who clearly thinks he knows a lot about the issue (even though he's a man, so by his own logic he shouldn't have any say on this issue) - he doesn't back up his assertions or answer questions. On an anonymous blog, that's all we have. You either make assertions and get pissed at people when they question you (and threaten to put them on "ignore"), or you actually debate and answer questions. JRolf has chosen to be part of the first group.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 10:21pm
"in danger of being nullified"
Damn. I was hoping for complete nullification from other anonymous posters. There's no community in the world I'd rather be nullified by more than anonymous handle blog-response posters.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/30/2006 @ 10:57pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/30/2006 @ 10:57pm
Ah!! I am feeling the love.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 10/30/2006 @ 11:42pm