My Left Wing - Recent Comments

just adding

Kathleen — Tue, 13 May 2008 08:12:32 GMT

war·mon·ger
-noun
a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.

Damn I can't sleep

Kathleen — Tue, 13 May 2008 07:54:05 GMT

OK the word warmonger by no means can be compared to the hate speak of nigger or cunt.
You can study policy and look at it all kinds of ways, come up with no warmonger scenario here IF we ever really knew the truth.
Just try to imagine if you are an Iranian student here in the US or anywhere in the world and you see a clip on the news of what could be the next president of the US dancing, laughing, singing, "bomb bomb Iran" this behavior is warmongering. Do you think for one minute that student is going to study McCain's policy on war and think oh he didn't really mean that.
Now I know you love to argue this and I don't care how you spin it, that is not what she meant or they took it out of context, if you are running for the the US presidency and you use these two words together "obliterate Iran", that is warmongering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Don't you see that that was played all over the world. Is the world going to study her actual policy and decide Hillary isn't really for wiping out Iran, it was just a sound bite.
That comment was warmongering.
When you are running to be the next president of the US you have to think before you speak, because you are not only speaking to voters you are speaking to the whole world.
Whenever, in my mind, you are quick to vote for war as a solution you are a warmonger. When you laugh, joke and sing about bombing innocent people you are a warmonger.
How is their behavior in front and off of the cameras supposed to be perceived? If not promoting war?
Ego talk?
Power mongering?
Fear mongering?
Every action begins with a thought, then words, then deeds.
This behavior is warmongering.

I don't know

Madscientist — Tue, 13 May 2008 07:07:19 GMT

because i have no idea what you mean by 'militarist.' I had to look it up. In one sense it is a synonym for 'warmonger.' That's kind of sneaky.

I found this definition, traced to an old Webster's:

Mil´i`ta`rist
n. 1. A military man.
2. A person having a strong spirit of militarism, in senses 3 or 4.

Going on to militarism, one finds:

3. The view that military strength, efficiency and values should dominate the country's public policy choices and take precedence over other interests.
4. The policy of maintaining a large military force, even in peacetime; - a term usually used by opponents of such a policy on the assumption that such a large force is unnecessary for national defense.

I don't think these definitions describe either Obama or McCain.

Shouldn't we be discussing their actual practical policies?

In fact, in practical terms, their policies differ more in terms of intent than in probably practical consequences.

To take the extremes, one side wants us to keep as large a military force in Iraq for as long as necessary for the Iraqis to get a working democracy even if we have to run it ourselves. The other side wants to get every US military person out of Iraq as quickly as possible. Both Obama and McCain are in the middle somewhere.

McCain wants to keep troops there to prevent a mass slaughter of thge Darfur kind. obama wants to move them over the horizon to return in case of a mass slaughter of the Darfur kind.

Both agree that we would remove troops when they were no longer needed and no longer requested by the government.

And from neither have I heard a detailed discussion of the consequences of pulling out too soon.

As I've said before, politics is really about choosing the lesser of two evils in situations where one doesn't have all the information. Discussing what we know and the likely results of decisions seems to me to be more fruitful, although no guarantee of success, than name calling.

AS Kathleen points out, that's just my prejudice.

Don't forget, though,

independentminded — Tue, 13 May 2008 07:02:15 GMT

that overpopulation has at least contributed to Global Warming.

Here's a Tip Jar,

independentminded — Tue, 13 May 2008 06:56:37 GMT

with a TFBS rating from me.

Is this snark?

independentminded — Tue, 13 May 2008 06:56:01 GMT

If so, it's not laughable.

If you're serious, however, you're just as vicious as any of the people you mention in your thread. Go figure.

OK, I understand

Madscientist — Tue, 13 May 2008 06:53:25 GMT

and of course my justification (we need not argue it here) is that the term 'warmonger' is not used descriptively but for its negative connotation, somethng karmafish has admitted, while i am using sheep in places where i see people all echo the same thoughts in the same words or nearly so.

I find the description especially apt when i hear the same thing stated by the usual suspects on the TV, and repeated by the usual suspects in the press or on blogs.

As an example, in 1998, President Clinton said that Social Security was in crisis, and proposed a privitization plan. The Republicans, the right wing writers and media people, and those i met on web sites, all bleated that Clinton was just trying to make people think there was a catastrophe, was using the politics of fear, that there was really nothing that wrong with Social Security, and that his plan was nuts. (Despite a tour to promote his plan, it never took off.) I'm claiming that the Right Wing including most Republicans did not seriously consider the situation, but instead fell into flock and echoed (bleated) what the flock leaders told them to bleat.

Four years later, President Bush declared that Social Security was in crisis, and proposed a better plan for privitization, and the Democrats and left wingers, writers, media types, politicians, and bloggers now bleated that the president was nuts, that there wasn't anything that wrong with Social Security, that he was using the politics of fear, and that his plan was nuts. I'm claiming that the Left Wing including most Democrats did not seriously consider the situation (which both they and the Republicans were on the other side of just four years earlier!), but instead fell into flock and echoed (bleated) what the flock leaders told them to bleat.

Thus, a very real problem has been allowed to get steadily worse because politicians and most of us acted like sheep instead of taking the problem seriously. Note that Bush's plan was to get some changes in Social Security and then to try the same thing with the much more serious problem of medicare. These two problems are the most serious we face, and will cause the downfall of our country if not dealt with. instead, most of us chose to bleat according to our political predilection, even if it meant being on different sides of the problem!

So, it is the meaning of this little aphorism:

To say it once again: Public opinions--private laziness.

Here, "McCain is a warmonger" is the public opinion, repeated as common coin of the realm. To simply repeat it is laziness, or, put another way, bleating.

What would not be lazy would be an argument that McCain is actually a warmonger. One would do that by examining his policies, and showing that he was backing these policies for personal gain, not for the good of the country.

Even better would simply be a discussion of the issues, something which the holding of public opinions, the chanting of the choir, the falderal of the flock forestalls. something which, in your words, it shuts down.

What is McCain's policy, fairly put? What would be the risks and benefits? What would be the risks and benefits of different policies? What is Obama's policy? What are its risks and benefits? How do these policies relate to the realities on the ground now?

Isn't that the discussion we should be having?

I don't think we should sink to the level of dismissing candidates with name calling, whether you love it or not. I don't think we should call Obama a nigger, Clinton a dried up cunt, or McCain a warmonger.

You are right to say that this is just my way of thinking. Yours may be different. Have at it.

I think we should talk policy. In fact, i often hear that stated here as the ideal.

What I am saying is

Kathleen — Tue, 13 May 2008 05:42:11 GMT

you are all over the use of warmonger as name-calling yet you time and again call people sheep. Now I thought that was name-calling.
Your drum is always that terminology or expression has to fit within your description/idea of proper dialog or you are going to call people out.
It tends to shut people down because with you there is no win-win even if you agree.
I don't care who you back.
Please don't ask me to explain it further you are a smart guy I am sure you get what I am saying.

Is McCain, or is McCain not, more of a militarist

Karmafish — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:25:45 GMT

than Obama?

And who are you intending to support? I don't recall you vocalizing support for any candidate.

Who do you like, Mad?

Also, btw, I am not such a follower of Barack that I need to follow his "vision."

I answered that

pyrrho — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:47:40 GMT

Since Jools is gone

Madscientist — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:44:50 GMT

Maybe someone else can tell me what i said exactly in my comment that is not fact.

You know, be fair, skip the speculations. The stuff about twisting things and then playing victim and the examples are rock solid.

Here's another example of "decoding" I heard the other day. McCain said that he would appoint non-activist Justices like Roberts and Alito. Somewhere I heard (and elsewhere i read) that he wqsn't saying that at all, but was using some code for "I will appoint judges that will repeal Roe v Wade."

And as if that wasn't bad enough, the decoders then went on to whine.

Kathleen

Madscientist — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:35:30 GMT

I have seen false statements made about all the candidates on this board. One forgets that when I first talked up Obama over a year and a half ago, i was savaged. more recently, maybe six months ago, when weeping came out in support of Obama, he was savaged.

I think we need to discuss the issues and the candidates' position as they truly are, not as misrepresented by their opposition.

What i am saying is that objectivity is in short supply here.

In this thread, the notion that John McCain is peddling war fpor his own personal gain is simply vicious calumny. Using name-calling in place of argument is beneath any rational person. And to think that McCain's position is not rational just because one disagrees with it is not only irrational and disrespectful, but counter Obama's notion of a new politics.

You know, the Obama who can't mention McCain without saying something positive about him.

You beat (bleat) the same drum over and over

Really? What drum is that?

btw, what candidate do i back?

What makes you think

Kathleen — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:27:23 GMT

people that don't agree with you haven't thought it through? What arrogance for you to assume that they haven't really looked at all the candidates objectively.
Were you the person who made the statement????? NO!
You beat (bleat) the same drum over and over, why don't you try to open your mind a bit and see others point of view, instead of these silly put downs.

imhotep

Madscientist — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:27:19 GMT

War is how the McCain's fill their rich bowl.

Your charge, your burden.

Piece.

(Collect enough pieces, trade them in for a brain.)

I agree

Madscientist — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:25:29 GMT

More to the point, those who don't think there are differences between the presidencies of the actual candidates are blind.

but those who substitute good old natrrrative and political rant for seeing, thought, and dialogue are simply sheep bleating into the wind.

Obama

Madscientist — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:22:58 GMT

has said that he wants to go beyond the old politics to a new inclusive politics. he's not perfect, but i don't expect anyone to be. he has been pretty good.

Namecalling in place of disagreement and argument is old politics, of the kind that Obama has repudiated.

Now, in your cakse, karma, I know it is namecalling because you said so. You said you used the term "warmonger" instead of, say, "support of a military option in iRAQ" because it had negative connotations you wished to express, in other words, you wished to name-call.

I consider this a betrayal of Obama's vision, and I think that name callers should not support in their hyp0ocrisy Obqama. The least they could do is to shut up to keep from hurting Obama and his vision for a new politics.

This kind of name calling betrays someone who has otherwise portrayed a faux pacifism.

Let me try it again this way: When you call someonme a warmonger, you are saying that they will consel war no matter what. So, if war ends in irq and become unfeasable in Iran, say, because they agree to all our demands, then you are saying that McCain will find some place else to go to war, perhaps Nigeria. (They got oil, so you can write in that narrative also as a bonus.) Maybe McCain will want us to go to war in Switzerland.

It doesn't matter where, you are saying, because the main thing about McCain is that he wants to go to war, all the time, anywhere, for any reason or no reason at all.

And yet, obama tells you just when he plans to go to war in scenario that means he will go to war with an ally and you get pissed at me!

Clinton, when asked what she'd do in the event of a nuclear attaclk by Iran on Israel, says that we would attack Iran (she did not promise to obliterate them). Obama, faced with the same question, says that if he were president, it would never get that far, because he would prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon, and that he would take no option off the table needed to carry out that goal. No option. certainly even you recognize that some of those options are military, including nuclear strikes.

But, fine, instead of actually thinking about and discussing the issues, be simplistic and call names.

I must be stuck in warp of some sort

PTK Bear — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:16:21 GMT

Pot the gateway drug for cigs and drinkings? ....

we have to be stuck on in a loop.