ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Firedoglake: We Fear Debate!

I visited one of my favorite Moonbat-Lefty-Nutjob blogs this morning, FireDogLake... Christy Hardin Smith and Jane Hamsher have made quite a name for themselves, covering all things Lamont- and Plame-related for the past 6 months.

They have additional team bloggers that have joined their effort (or who guest blog from time to time) and I had a lot of laughs about this post from TRex, in which he (or she?) excoriates "reich wingers" and the "Rightards" for:

  1. being racist
  2. being stupid
  3. pointing out that Hamsher's use of photoshop to put Lieberman into blackface isn't acceptable for political discourse. (As Malkin points out, it seems to be a common tactic used by the Moonbats).
Anyway, I commented several times on FDL, pointing out the flawed logic of TRex's post, specifically with regard to education levels and voter preferences. I did not use inflammatory remarks, nor did I use an uncivilized tone.

StupidCountry could attest to the fact that I do not stoop to such tactics. (By the way, SC... why don't you have a reciprocal link back to ARC? Just asking....) I will admit my Majikthese post the other day certainly was over the top - hey, I'm human! However, I try to engage fellow bloggers in an honest debate and always refrain from resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks.

Well, as I began posting my comments, I kept noticing that they were being deleted.... sometimes, if they made the comments page, someone would respond to them (quoting them) and then the quoted comment would disappear, surely leaving the readers of FDL confused as to where the other part of the conversation was...

Here is the text of my comments... I've also loaded the screenshots of the comments with the text for those that would like to see them in the original formatting.

Here is actually my second comment, after I noticed that my first comment never made the thread (I repost the info from my first comment after I posted this one)
St Wendeler says
August 19th, 2006 at 7:14 am

Can I get a comment in here? not like I'm being a jerk, calling people racists, stupid, or telling them to f-off...

Just saying... I could understand banning my comments if I was saying inflammatory remakrs. Unless you think that well thought out arguments are inflammatory.

And if you don't think my arguments are well supported, you should allow them so that the others here can see how idiotic I am. I suspect, however, that they're not being allowed because you fear them....

How curious

Next comes a repost of my original comment, which questioned the validity of TRex's assertion that "the more educated people become, the more liberal they are."
Thanks for letting me comment!

From my previous comments:

TRex - You've got a pretty simplistic view of the world... very black & white, good & evil - something that the Left often ascribes to the "reich wingers" in the US as evidence of their "stupidity." Thinking that those of us on the "right" are evil and against "liberty" is just childish and, in your mind, gives you license and justification to almost any action or position that you might take, however ridiculous.

WRT "smartness" of the left vs. right, you are correct. As one attains higher levels of education, they tend to become more liberal. However, this is a (again) an oversimplification and a generalization. When you look at the voting patterns by education level, here is essentially what is discovered (check w/ Stan Greenberg for the actual #s from the 2000 election):
  • no h.s. diploma - overwhelmingly Dem (something like 75 - 80%!!!)
  • h.s. diploma - majority Dem, down to approx 60%
  • some college - even, 50/50 Dem/GOP
  • undergraduate degree - majority GOP (60-70%)
  • masters - even
  • phd's - majority dem (80%)


my "analysis" of this is the following:
  1. Those without or with only a h.s. diploma are in all likelihood economically disaffected and have a poor understanding of economics, do not have a huge burden wrt taxes, etc.
  2. those with undergrad - prefer the GOP as they pay a lion's share of the taxes, have families that they're trying to provide for, recognize the hard work that they've endured to get where they are, etc.
  3. those w/ masters - even in all likelihood b/c those with MBAs offset those with masters in linguistics, philosophy, sociology, etc. ;-)
  4. those w/ PHDs - have spent almost their entire adult life in academia (Ivory Tower that it is), are not subject to economic realities (such as being fired) like the rest of us and the professors in the business colleges are in the minority on college campuses.
just my two cents....

But hey, keep up the finger pointing as you will... but I would recommend that you might want to consider using a different finger. [reference to the fact that he posted an image of Johnny Cash flipping the bird.]

Regards,
St Wendeler from Another Rovian Conspiracy

This comment was quickly seized upon before it could be deleted and my next comment includes the criticism it received from Nate, another commenter:
St Wendeler Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 8:45 am

Nate @224
St Wanker @224: no h.s. diploma - overwhelmingly Dem (something like 75 - 80%!!!)

my "analysis" of this is the following:
Those without or with only a h.s. diploma are in all likelihood economically disaffected and have a poor understanding of economics, do not have a huge burden wrt taxes, etc.

Putting aside the fact that you are wrong about these figures being from the 2000 election... They were from the 2000 Census and just like the census, they include all people living inside the US whether legally or illegally, English-speaking or not, immigrant or not provide lousy picture of "US Voters"...

Your assertion above is naive to put it kindly and flat out ridiculous to put it more aptly

When your "No H.S. Ed" number is further broken down by race (this posts subject) it paints a very telling picture!

White people with no High Schoold diploma clock in at a whopping 81% Republican. (Some might call these folks "rednecks") The other 19% probably didn't understand the question.

Black people with no High School diploma see an endless stream of Old, Fat, White Men parading across the screen on the WNN or (White News Networks) who couldn't give two shits about their problems. (See Katrina) And who probably cross the street to cover their wallets when said black folk are coming towards them (unless they're wearing white gloves of course) clock in at a whopping 91% Democratic affiliation.

I don't remember the hispanic number but it leans strongly Democratic as well.

Hence why your assertion is so stupid. The only reason so many "uneducated", non-white, non-high-school grads lean Democratic is because its really hard to like Republicans when you're living on $5.25 an hour (Or Less!) AKA Minimum Wage

Putz!

Nate... I appreciate your commenting on my now non-existent comment. I just love how fascist and intolerant of dissent FDL is. New motto for FireDogLake:

FireDogLake - We Fear Debate!

It's interesting that you are compelled to break down the non-h.s. diploma and h.s. diploma numbers by race. Regardless of the racial makeup (with which I am not concerned), the overwhelming majority of those without or only with a h.s. diploma favor the Dems. Are you saying that this cohort is primarily made up of African-Americans?

Not sure whether this data came from the census or what... It was presented by Stanly Greenberg (right wing pollster that he is) shortly after the 2000 election loss to expand on the reasons that Gore lost and correcitve actions for the Dem party, one of which was to woo voters with an undergrad degree. I assume that his data came from exit polls, but I'll have to pull up his research and validate.

And hey, thanks for calling me a putz. How tolerant of you!

Regards,
St Wendeler
Another Rovian Conspiracy

After this comment (which the moderators at FDL saw as threatening apparently), comments were frozen and this message appeared:
Note: Due to an infestation of trolls, comments on this post have been closed.

Now, it's pretty sad that FDL considers a lone commenter questioning the assertions in their post to be an "infestation of trolls." As you can see here, my comments were much more respectful than anything in the original post or the comments that responded to me.

and with regard to the original post, I find it totally ironic that this occured in response to a post which had the following text:
I know what it’s like to walk out the door every morning knowing that the world is against you. I know what it means to have people make assumptions about your character based on nothing but their own ignorant suppositions. I know what it’s like to stand in a room full of strangers and feel their hate and suspicion beating down hard on my neck.

I am not a racist. I could never be a racist. Because I, unlike all conservatives, know what it’s like to look at another person who is radically different from myself and think, "Except for an accident of birth, that could be me."

The only way you could be a right-winger is to think that somehow, God has made you and your kind better than everybody else. You have to so believe in your entitlement that you think your privilege is some kind of God-given right. You can’t accept or comprehend the notion that on the inside you are no different than that black man, that Palestinian woman, this homeless family, or that billionaire. No better. No worse.

Does TRex or Nate not recognize how idiotic they sound? Stating that they are so open to people who are "radically different" and aren't able to hate and be suspicious of them while at the same time doing just that to me?? Even going so far as to change my name to "St Wanker?" And I didn't even go after Nate's inability to write a coherent sentence with a verb... was like shooting fish in a barrel.

Here is a screenshot of a comment which addressed this very issue.

As regular readers of this blog know, I've been banned from BitchPHD (she's great!), DailyKos, and DemocraticUnderground. OliverWillis would not allow my comments on his site for quite a while, but in recent months has appeared to become more open. Keep in mind that my being banned was always due to the fact that I disagreed with the Left, not that I was mean, rude, or used inappropriate language. (God knows that the Lefty blogosphere doesn't care about how you say something, just that you agree with them.)

I guess my point is that I just don't get the insularity that the Left side of the blogosphere seeks for itself. I mean, if you go back and read the original FDL post from TRex and then look through the comments, without my input it's just a bunch of backslapping and self-congratulation. Which is nice and all, but it certainly doesn't qualify you as being part of the "reality-based community" - unless of course your reality is composed of people who only live in liberal enclaves on the coast, listent to Air America Radio, and get their news from DailyKos, Democratic Underground, and FDL.

Which is fine, and all... but don't be surprised when your "reality" is turned upside-down by people who can actually counter your idiotic remarks. I'm going to Trackback this post to FDL - and will count how many minutes it takes before it's removed. Unfortunately, since the comments/trackbacks on the original TRex post have been closed, I'll have to select some other FDL post... confusing their readers even more.

*** UPDATE ***
30 minutes and the trackback was removed. How "progressive" of them.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Amending the Constitution

Seems to be all the rage...

From my favorite cartoonists, Cox & Forkum:




Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center"

I went to see World Trade Center today. Like many, I was not sure what to expect from Oliver Stone, the dictionary picture boy found at "paranoid." I was quite surprised.

My surprise is summed up in the character of Dave Karnes played convincingly by Michael Shannon. Karnes is the Marine veteran who left his cushy job in Wilton, Connecticut when he saw what had happened at the World Trade Center on 09/11. He donned his fatigues that same day and headed for lower Manhattan. He is the man who with another Marine found the heroes of the story buried under the rubble.

Stone treats this man with respect, and therein lies my surprise. In the closing credits he references the fact that Karnes then returned to the Marine Corp and served two tours of duty in Iraq. For Stone to have done this, given his history, is remarkable.

Karnes is certainly an interesting character. One of the fire fighters at the scene asks him his name. Karnes replies, "Staff Sergeant David Karnes." The firefighter jokingly says, "I think I'll need something shorter." Karnes replies stone faced, "Staff Sergeant." Yep, pure Jar Head.

It is a movie well worth seeing. While Stone misses the overall horror we as a nation felt, he does successfully take the events of 09/11 to a very personal level. He puts us in the heads and hearts of the characters.

An excellent movie.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

The State of Our Education System

This article in USAToday (yes, I've been traveling) caught my attention. It focuses on the poor performance of our students in terms of literacy, a key requirement for success in the 21st century. The root cause for this is that teachers are not being trained to effectively teach reading:

To find the answer to our illiteracy crisis, Americans must look within

By William J. Moloney

A half-century ago, Rudolf Flesch wrote his classic Why Johnny Can't Read: And What You Can Do About It, in which he described how a growing confusion in American academic circles was undermining the literacy of future generations.

In the years since, the malady revealed by Flesch has grown to epidemic proportions in which nearly one-third of all U.S. school children have serious literacy deficits. If you think this is just a problem of poor children, think again. Among first-year college students, one-quarter require remediation for literacy deficiencies.

Actually, poor children do quite well regarding literacy — as long as they don't live in the USA. As former U.S. Education secretary Rod Paige frequently pointed out, all of the generally impoverished English-speaking nations of the Caribbean have higher literacy rates than the USA's. Similarly, studies among poor children in Africa show levels of English literacy that would be the envy of any U.S. city. Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. economy not only sustained global dominance but provided satisfactory employment for the marginally literate. Today, that economy is being replaced by an increasingly complex information-based economy that will reward only those who have the skills to serve its changing needs.

Beyond the lower rung of the agricultural and service sectors, this economy has ever fewer places for the marginally literate. In short, the person who cannot read will be disconnected from the promise of the American Dream.

As the ominous implications for our future gradually emerge, U.S. policymakers to ordinary citizens will be left wondering how to explain this education deficit. How can a nation where education spending is nearly twice the average of those in European Union countries produce such woeful results? Furthermore, if one of the most common excuses for educational dysfunction — poverty — cannot be invoked, what can explain the inferior performance of U.S. students in virtually all international comparisons?

In the past year, two books have appeared that, taken together, not only capture the full dimensions of our problem but also offer useful advice on possible solutions.

In The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Friedman introduces readers to the looming economic tsunami best exemplified by the Asian giants India and China, now riding their powerhouse educational systems toward an international dominance in the 21st century that has the potential to equal the U.S. dominance in the 20th century.

While Friedman compellingly describes the educational strength of America's economic competitors, the second book — The Knowledge Deficit by E. D. Hirsch — provides an equally persuasive analysis of the educational weakness of the USA. Blending both intellectual history and cognitive psychology, Hirsch unmasks the faddishness, incoherence and hostility to research-based practice that characterizes most of the U.S. reading establishment.

Anybody who doubts Hirsch's devastating critique should look at the recently released report of the National Council on Teacher Quality, “What Education Schools Aren't Teaching About Reading — and What Elementary Teachers Aren't Learning.” This study examines 72 schools across the nation and measures them against the extent to which they teach the five common tenets of reading research (phonemic awareness, phonics, guided oral fluency, vocabulary building and reading comprehension). The result: 31% use none of those tenets, and only 15% employ all.

These figures help explain the assertion of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development that 85% of U.S. reading teachers were never properly trained.

When those who teach our teachers are clueless about or even outright hostile to reading research, is it any wonder that our children become the victims of a monumental literacy deficit traceable not to problems of poverty or funding, but to an unwillingness or inability to grasp realities that have been clear to professional educators in every other industrial nation?

Robert Kennedy once said that the “fate we impose on our children today shall be the fate of all of us tomorrow.”

Absent dramatic corrective action in America's classrooms, the fate of our nation is in serious peril. Not because of what others have done to us, but because of what we have done to ourselves.

William J. Moloney is Colorado's commissioner of education.

The colleges of education across this country should be ashamed. And I fear that this issue of colleges not educating the educators isn't confined solely to reading, but math, science, etc.

And, I know what we need to address the problem.... MONEY!!! (at least, that's what I suspect the NEA would say.)

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Cease Fire

It seems that the UN cease fire resolution is just another temporary cessation of hostilities. Without the Lebanese Army disarming Hizbollah, it's just a matter of when violence resumes.

Lebanese Cabinet: Army won't ‘chase' or disarm militia

The Associated Press

BEIRUT — The Lebanese Cabinet approved a plan Wednesday to deploy the Lebanese army south of the Litani River to extend government authority over the region.

Early today, Lebanese troops began crossing the Litani, a senior Lebanese army official told the Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to news media.

In conjunction with United Nations peacekeepers, the army will gradually take over territory in the south as Israeli forces continue their withdrawal. Israel had threatened to halt its withdrawal if the Lebanese force did not move south.

The army deployment is a key provision of the U.N. cease-fire plan that took effect Monday and largely ended 34 days of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. The fighting began after Hezbollah guerrillas killed eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two in a cross-border raid on July 12.

The Cabinet said Lebanese soldiers would not “chase” or “take revenge” on Hezbollah guerrillas in an effort to disarm fighters. “There will be no confrontation between the army and brothers in Hezbollah. … That is not the army's mission,” Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said after the Cabinet meeting.

Though the government will not require Hezbollah to give up its arms, it directs the group to keep them off the streets. “There will be no authority or weapons other than those of the state,” Aridi said. “If any weapon is found, even the brothers in Hezbollah have said, ‘Let it be in the hands of the army.' ”

The Cabinet session to implement the cease-fire was twice delayed because Hezbollah members in the government objected to enforcement of the key U.N. demand that the guerrilla force be disarmed.

Yet another indication of the effectiveness of the UN.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Monday, August 14, 2006

A Few Choice Hayekian Posts

Saw several posts over at Cafe Hayek during the weekend regarding economics and free trade that I thought were just excellent. Here are the links and a few excerpts:

Still Alive in the Long Run
Trade’s documented effect on employment is clear: freer trade does not reduce the aggregate level of employment (and nor does it increase it). Skeptics of free(r) trade frequently respond “Sure, in the long-run new jobs will be created. But what about workers who are unemployed now? The long run is no good to them. Even an economist, John Maynard Keynes, recognized that ‘in the long run we’re all dead.’”

This justification for protectionism – that protectionist policies are justified because they diminish pain and anxiety today, while the costs of protectionism emerge only in the less-significant tomorrow – is faulty on a variety of fronts. Perhaps the biggest flaw of this justification is that it’s a lie. No one really believes that short-run consequences should take precedence over long-run consequences.

You see, people who really believe that long-run effects should be ignored or significantly discounted in favor of short-run effects would, in addition to supporting protectionism, support also the following policies:

- eliminating environmental laws (because these impose substantial costs today in return for benefits that arise mostly in the long-run);
[...]
- eliminating Social Security (which forces people to forego consumption today in favor of the long-run).

If no sensible person accepts the mantra “in the long run we’re all dead” as an argument against environmental laws and efforts to reduce the budget deficit, why does this mantra have credence in debates over free trade?

And this one, which discusses creative distruction (something that Liberals and Planners just don't get):
As a Rule, Freedom and Free Trade Work

The current hysteria over “outsourcing” – that is, importing services – often features opponents of free trade posing as defenders of workers who’ve lost their jobs even though these workers “played by the rules.” Sen. John Edwards, for example, during his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, repeatedly spoke of people who “played by the rules” but who nevertheless got pink slips because of trade with foreigners. The assumption is that playing by the rules should be sufficient to protect you from losing your job.

Appealing to rules is powerful. Everyone understands that breaking agreed-upon rules is wrong.

But there is no rule in a free society that says if you play by the rules – if you work hard, get an education, and are a person of integrity – that you’re guaranteed never to lose your job. Put differently, the fact that honest, decent, hard-working people sometimes lose their jobs is not evidence of unfairness, wrong-doing, mischief, or poor policy.

If government ever tried to enforce a rule that guaranteed that no rule-follower would ever lose his or her job, government would have to (try to) freeze in place the current pattern of economic activity. Consumers would be prevented from changing their patterns of spending; new technology would be outlawed; pursuit of greater efficiencies would be prohibited; demographic changes would be fiercely regulated by government. Nothing that threatens to significantly reduce demand for the output of any existing industry would be tolerated – for any such reduction in demand entails a scaling back of production in that industry and, hence, possible job losses in that industry.
[...]

and finally, a post about the protectionists claims that the US can't compete with the lower regulatory environments abroad:
Do US Producers Operate at a Disadvantage Relative to Less-Regulated Producers in Poor Countries?
Don Boudreaux

One frequently encountered argument against free trade is that the generally lower regulatory burdens faced by companies in poor countries afford companies in these countries an "unfair" advantage over companies in rich countries (because rich-country governments generally have more stringent regulations on worker safety and emissions of environmental pollutants).

'Tain't nuthin' unfair going on.

First, an economy's ultimate purpose is not to produce for the sake of producing, but to produce for the sake of consuming. The ultimate standard for judging an economy's performance is how well it satisfies consumers' material desires, not how secure and fairly treated it makes producers feel. If producers in another country are better, for whatever reason, than are domestic producers at satisfying consumer desires, no economic or moral imperative is served by government protecting these domestic firms from competition -- for do so, really, is to threaten to inflict violence upon consumers who insist on taking advantage of the good deals offered by the foreign suppliers.

Second, as with the focus on wages, focusing on the government-imposed regulatory burdens gives too narrow a view. Indeed it's true: all other things equal, firms generally prefer to have to comply with fewer than with more regulations (just as, all other things equal, they prefer to pay less taxes and lower wages). But all other things are emphatically not equal. Rich countries are rich principally because they have good institutions -- formal and informal -- that make property rights reasonably secure, contractual commitments reasonably trustworthy, dispute-settlement processes reasonably unbiased, and on and on. Perhaps the greatest challenge to people who care about fostering wide-spread economic progress is to figure out how to create pro-growth institutions. Doing so is monstrously difficult. But it's also terrifically important, for it's the mix of these institutions that matter most for freedom and prosperity.

Suppose you've saved your pennies and have accumulated $10M to invest. You want to produce ball-bearings. Geographically, two places seem an ideal location for your factory: Nebraska and Nigeria. But geography is hardly all that counts. Will you commit your funds to Nigeria immediately upon learning that environmental and work-place regulations in Nigeria are more lax than they are in Nebraska? Hopefully not. (If your instinct is to say "Yes!", e-mail me; I have lots of things in my attic that I know you'll just love to buy.)

Because your property -- both immobile and mobile -- will be much less secure in Nigeria, because in Nigeria you're likely to have to pay bribes again and again and again, because your Nigerian workers will likely be less educated and less skilled, because the road, air, rail, water, and telephone infrastructures there are much poorer than in Nebraska, the fact that the Nigerian government imposes only lax environmental and worker-safety regulations on firms operating there means very little. The more-attractive place to set up shop is Nebraska.

Indeed, Nigerian factory owners might sing a related song: "We in Nigeria are forced to compete against factories in the U.S. and other developed countries that enjoy many more advantages than we enjoy -- a rule of law, secure property rights, very little corruption." Would the Nigerian people be well-served if the Nigerian government heeded this (accurate) claim and, in response, protected Nigerian producers from foreign competitors enjoying the immense advantages that come from being located in the US?

Cafe Hayek is a great blog.... if you've never been there, check it out.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Majikthise Likes Her Nazis!

And not just your run-of-the-mill, "I joined the Nazi party because everyone was doing it" type...

no, she goes for the true believers, the elite, those that were willing to impose National Socialism through brute force.

H/T To Tim Blair

Gunter Grass in SS?

The BBC reports that novelist the Gunter Grass now claims to have served in Waffen-SS. His memoirs are due out in September. Make of this revelation what you will. Frankly, if he did serve in the SS, I'm surprised the news hadn't come out already.

Regardless of whether GG served in the SS, I'm still looking forward to reading The Tin Drum, because Amanda totally sold me on the book on the drive back from the NOW conference in Albany.

Either that, or she just likes his writing style and couldn't be bothered with that whole holocaust-thingy...

(I knew I had her on the Lefty Moonbat blogroll for a reason.)

I seem to recall Pope Benedict (aka Ratzinger) getting a lot of criticism for being alive during the Nazi regime.... I don't remember any discussion along the lines that the Waffen-SS wasn't as bad as the Totenkopf-SS.

Let me just point something out here... the Waffen-SS was directly under Heinrich Himmler's control.

Wikipedia sums it up nicely:
In the Nuremberg Trials, the Waffen-SS was condemned as part of a criminal organisation due to their involvement with the National Socialist Party (NSDAP), and Waffen-SS veterans were denied many of the rights afforded other German combat veterans who had served in the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine.

And, as Jonah Goldberg and I will point out from time to time, besides all of the genocidal racism of the Nazi regime, many on the left would have difficulty identifying nazi policies with which they disagree?

And, as Hayek points out in his excellent The Road to Serfdom, the centralized planning required under a socialist regime is no better than the centralized planning that the Brits were fighting in WWII.

***UPDATE***
Sentence following wikipedia entry quoted above should have been included:
Conscripts, however, were exempted from that judgment, as many of them were forced to join the organisation by German authorities.

No doubt this was a comfort to those that came under the boot of the Waffen-SS.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Daily Dose of DU

Do I really need to comment on the following?

Husb2Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Mon Aug-14-06 02:03 PM
Original message

Is there not even ONE 'brave' soul on DU (or *anywhere* on the left) ..... Updated at 9:08 AM

..... who wants to deny there are bad people all around the world who would do whatever it takes to kill Americans and American allies?

Anyone?

I didn't think so.

Is there even one 'brave' soul on our side who would allow terrorist groups to plot, plan, and then execute an act of terror on anyone anywhere?

I didn't think so.

But ya see, here's the deal. They continue to conflate the plain-as-day fact that terrorists exist and are real and are hell bent to get us with their stupid fucking oil drenched occupation of Iraq.

And what that's done is muddy the idea that we 'would do things differently'.

On Iraq, specifically, when any idiot Dem pol says "I would have run the Iraq War differently", they deserve a foot squarely placed in their sphincter (or sphincterette, as appropriate).

In the argument being waged on Main Street, that hurts us more than helps.

Because, without the intentional conflation, that is *exactly* the right answer for dealing with the terror bad guys.

But this seems to be an argument we can easily lose. Unless, rightnowtodaythisminute, we hear people on our side harping on this point non-stop. The public knows the deal about the UK bust. They **know** no shots were fired and no guys with humvees and night scopes on intimidating helmets and dessert cammo were involved.

But until we can unconflate (Is that a word? If not, it is now, cuz you know what it means.) Iraq and terrorists, we have a very hard time getting our message out there on how fucking STUPID they've been and how much smarter *anybody* else would be ...... including the fucking Cub Scouts led by a Den Mother, fer krissakes.

Rightnowtodaythisminute, we can start to disconnect the two, if only because **we** could capitalize on and politicize the same damn thing Rove can.

The UK busts ..... talk about it ...... Rightnowtodaythisminute!


Vash the Stampede Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Mon Aug-14-06 02:08 PM
Response to Original message

2. Usually, I like your posts.

This one, not so much. It's nearly incomprehensible.


Husb2Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts)

Mon Aug-14-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. I reread it .... Updated at 9:08 AM

*I* know what I said. Why don't you?? :)

Lemme try the short version:

War on Terror conflated with Iraq War

"I would have done it different" is a bad messgae for Iraq/good message for WOT

With UK Bust being fresh, we have a good opportunity to politicize the bust for OUR benefit - if we act right now.

I hope that clarifies. (Thanks for the kind words, too!)


skeeters2525 (140 posts)
Mon Aug-14-06 02:13 PM
Response to Original message

3. fFirst Vietnam, Then Main Street

We heard the same BS since the beginning of time. If we don't fight them in Vietnam. They will march into downtown Los Angeles. Well we lost Vietnam. Where are they?

Here's my solution to fighting terrorism. Impeach Bush. Problem solved. We all live together.

We will always have enemies. Because the Pentagon needs enemies. Otherwise we may look at how moronic they really are.

My advice.

The media is in on it as well as the White House. Ignore every stupid word you read about terror.

Get out and talk to people about what this Country should be about. People are sick of this stupid war, and wasting billions that should be spent here.

Ignore every code whatever color. Ignore the Bin Laden tape which will be released once a week up to the election.

SCREW THE WARMONGERS. THEY HAVE MADE AMERICA EVIL WHILE THEY PROFIT.


AZDemDist6 Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Mon Aug-14-06 02:15 PM
Response to Original message

4. "we'd have been better off with Kerry's plan of intensified police work


than Bush's 'premptive war'. All these terrorist plots have been stopped by good police." is what I'm saying most days.


sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Mon Aug-14-06 02:16 PM
Response to Original message

6. Bin Laden is a CIA operation

Yes, there are people on DU who would deny that there are terrorists or bad people wanting to kill Americans. Far too goddamned many of them.

Otherwise, I'm with the poster above, not following the point of your post.

"intensified" Police work... as long as it doesn't involve listening in to terrorist communications or monitoring terrorist bank transactions or monitoring terrorist internet traffic. Or sharing info from the CIA to FBI... or, or, or... yeah, that's "intensified." Of course, I don't recall Kerry ever using the word "intensified."

And whatever we do, we'd better not attack the jihadists and kill them in their own country. That's warmongering for profit, you know?

Yeah, that sounds like a plan. We need to get more of this type of discussion out to the electorate - quick.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler