A matter of "perception"?

Do you see pro-bush, pro-pnac posters on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1271439&mesg_id=1271439

I solicit your perception.

I looked at it a little while ago, and I kept checking to make sure I was really at DU. Something strange is sure in the air.

I'm all for "tolerance" but, geez, the tolerance seems to be bending,...a LOT

:shrug:

I am doing some serious re-evaluation.

... but not all that odd--especially for a bunch of people who have no more information than the rest of us on what happened.

There are those who believe that the hand of the neo-cons is integral to everything that has happened in the world (remember the secret earthquake generators during the tsunami?).

Then there are those who take the conventional wisdom in the press and see it as believable. Bound to be a conflict of ideas between those two groups of polar extremes.

M'self, it's watch and wait time. There will probably be clues in who swoops in to fill the power vacuum before and during the next elections.

Cheers.

I thought that this might be a legitimate disagreement between reasonable people. However, after giving it some thought and reading more of the posts, I'm guessing that some of these folks were pro-bush.

I think this because:
1) It seems like an awfully big coincidence that we would all of a sudden have several new folks living in the middle east signing up and responding to the same thread at the same time
2) they sure were willing to jump right in as new posters with very controversial positions.
3) they chose not to address in any detail the past perfidies of the our current regime and the pnac crowd.

,...which completely ignored the REAL complications, the REAL (and factually-based agendas), the REAL (and factually based) costs to the majority of people and profits to a few, and the complete disregard of facts and the "rule of law".

We had a poster banned for violations of less weight than these.

It has me wondering.

,...I am kicking my own post *LOL*.

One poster had a point: It's fine to dislike, even hate, *. But living for hatred is a rather sad existence. I've seen people do it, and they either fall to pieces, find something positive to live for, or become bitter, warped souls. It's possible to define something by what it isn't, but it's a difficult definition to maintain. A progressive is bound to be anti-Bush in most things, but that's not sufficient, and being anti-Bush in all things is not necessary. Otherwise you're just a shadow, willingly taking whatever shape * dictates.

I think a progressive has to have people's good in mind. I'm against the strain of Marxist thinking that thought the worker's plight must be worsened in order to trigger revolution. If it helps people, I'm usually for it, unless it's only a very short-term help, hurting them in the end. I make my own decisions, and don't really pay attention to what * or the neocons say on the matter; I don't wait to find out what * or neocons think or say, and adopt the opposite position. Sometimes I'm wrong; sometimes I'm right.

The thread you referred to was strange in some respects. There was one person who seemingly wilfully misinterpreted what other people said. Forums like this need a bit more goodwill than is necessary in person, and without it, disintegrate. I suspect a number of lurkers were encouraged to speak; typically if you say something against the common wisdom, you're shouted down and insulted, not reasoned with.

,...is seperate from the fallacies indicated on that thread.

I wish you would have actually examined the thread I posted.

I have slight tolerance for hate.

Xavier86 and pelsar had valid points. They believe that something can happen independently of the neocon cabal's plotting; and that things the neocons want can be similar enough to what a progressive would want to be acceptable. I also think things can go differently from how people plan them to go. These aren't based on any fallacy. They assume that neocons aren't all-powerful, that even bad people can want things that are good, and, again, that neocons aren't all powerful. These seem like plausible assumptions.

I haven't run into xavier86 before; pelsar I've seen in the I/P forum to be independent enough in his thinking to not care what other people think, but to be reasonably respectful.

Revolutions tend to scare me, but there have been enough "revolution light" going around that I can hope these things; I was worried when the USSR collapsed, and just distrustful when the Czech students brought down their government. I was optimistic with the Ukrainian business.

That said, I hope the Lebanese can ditch the Syrian occupation. I hope the lessons of the previous civil war have dispelled the likelihood of a new civil war; true, Hizbullah concerns me. I've wanted these things since Clinton was in office. I was outraged when the Daily Star reported the proposal to change the constitution to allow Lahoud to stay in power--before the NYT picked it up or the neocons uttered a peep about it. I see no reason to change my mind because of *, or because somebody else is so anti-* that they don't allow for any good in the same world with * and consquently level false charges.

Be well.

I mean, it looks like just a few of the more moderate democrat members. Not all DUers are conspiracy theorists or people who think Bush is worse than Stalin.

On Edit: On the other hand, with regards to their number of posts, I suppose it is possible. But can't say anything for sure. Benefit of the doubt??

otherwise.

*sigh*

Bush is nothing more than a facade.