Suddenly religion/secularism, Gore, Krugman are bad....Iraq war is good.

That is what I am seeing here a lot lately. Stances change rapidly. Depending on who one supports, religion is good or secularism is good....depends. Gore, who deserves respect, is attacked here, Krugman is not liked here anymore.

And the saddest thing I see is a tendency now to defend the Iraq war as just....to keep a military focus front and center.

Has already started so it's going to require a lot more than simply being for or against it as an appeal to voters. I thought the war was a bad idea back then and I still think that. But one of the few things Clark has said that I actually like was "I told you so is not acceptable foreign policy". And I think that's true no matter who it's coming from.

My point is. O.K....we agree the war was bad.....so what's your solution (you being whoever is asking for my vote)?

People need to realize that things aren't exactly black or white (ie. Iraq war bad vs. Iraq war good).

And he praised those who executed it. No, you know I am right. People are now supporting the war in order to keep fear and in order to further their candidate. It is happening.

I'm not a Clark supporter. Don't particularly care for him. i was simply using one of his quotes to make a point.

I just think a black and white, with us or against us perspective is a hallmark of the bushco admin and I want no part of that.

Let's take for example Dean since that's obviously who you support. One of the things I like about him is his stance on gun control and his NRA rating. Now I personally hate guns and am pro-gun control. However I realize, like Dean does, that it's not a black and white issue and that the tenor and nuanced tone of one's position is just as important as the black and white, pro or anti position itself. And I realize that there are many people out there with votes to cast who feel differently than I do.

Now I don't understand why in Dean's case that is good if I, as an undecided who is not supporting a particular candidate feel that way but it's not if for Kucinich I'm willing to overlook his pro-life positions and see the nuance behind them or Clark's votes for Reagan or Kerry's position on the war. In each of those cases I'm not choosing to see a simply their position vs. my position, but to see how they are going to best deal with complicated issues for which not only are there no quick and easy solutions but for which there are also a whole lot of people out there who may think completely differently from myself.

He never praised the decision to go in there, he questioned it every chance he got.

If you can't see the difference then I don't know how we can have a thoughtful discussion about this.

SNIP..."People need to realize that things aren't exactly black or white (ie. Iraq war bad vs. Iraq war good)."

Wrong!

Kudos. You've convinced me. Maybe you're right. The key to winning in '04 is to yell at people and tell them they are wrong. Your political accumen is clearly unparalleled.

I guess you couldn't have gotten this lovely little tidbit into your first response to my post?

You said it was not black or white. I don't have to convince you. You have access to this forum and all our discussions, just like I do.

You have a right to your opinion.

I have no political acumen, I just support the truth.

Now that we are there what I want is a solution not right vs wrong, us against them rhetoric. And solutions plain and simple are never black or white. So until I hear someone offer solutions I'm unconvinced by that person. And if that solution is simply "The Iraq war was wrong!!!", that doesn't do me or anyone in this country a good goddamned bit of good does it. And if someone DOES have a solution then I'd rather hear that trumpeted through the airwaves more often than a position on a vote that occurred over a year ago, for which most of the candidates was purely a hypothetical. Howard Dean or Wes Clark or Al Sharpton's hypothetical vote on the war ultimately means not one bit more than my hypothetical vote on the war.

denying clean water, denying food, denying medical supplies, AFTER bombing their infrastructure, killing their children FOR WHAT??

Kerry/Gep/Lieb participated in the death and destruction. They were elected to represent the people of the U.S. NOT to wage war for the international oil companies.

Bush & Co. with the help of the demo co-conspirators convinced the old and infirm that Saddam was responsible for 911 and was ready to attack them in their homes. Hitler's propaganda machine was nothing compared to what we witnessed in this country in the last 2 years.

Dean '04...

Ten appalling lies about Iraq
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16274

All the lies in one place, administration quotes.
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/adminquoteshtml.htm

War, Lies, and WMDs
http://www.lewrockwell.com/cummings/cummings22.html

Bush's new war lies
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/091003a.html

Twenty lies about the Bush war
http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/iraq-lies.html

40 Lies about the Bush War.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_080103F.shtml

Did you listen to Dean and other democrats before we went in? Before the IWR vote? They were all conflicted about this thing because of the falsification of the intelligence, the twisting of it. Even Dean!

Our federal government is responsible for security, thats job #1. If you're being told that this guy has WMD and there is some evidence he is connected to Al Qaeda, then you are faced with a tough call. You don't see it that way?

If the adminstration didn't twist intelligence and hide it and discourage the CIA from presenting contrary evidence then it wouldn't have happened.

do you support the war in Iraq? If not, why is it ok to pander to those who do just to win? What about what is right?

'cause it sucks out there, and sometimes you have to make a choice between bad and worse.

Iraq was not a choice between bad and worse. It was just plain wrong. It had nothing to do with 9/11, it was not an immediate threat.

That is exactly what the Democrats I speak of have done. They have compromised their souls away for the bad or worse.....when all along there was that which was right.

and sadly true

what did he do?

except for the Gore thing. The press has always hated him. Anyone who endorses Dean will have flaws. We saw it with Ivins (the lady who warned us about Bush became a naive Bush lover), Gore (people who wouldn't piss on Lieberman if he were on fire all of the sudden caring about his hurt feelings), and now Krugman (hack who doesn't do his research). If Ghandi endorsed the man tomorrow we would have stories and then threads about Ghandi the war monger.

I especially got a kick out of the "Ghandi the war monger" part. Good one. :-)

Julie

When you are right you are right dsc. Good post.

WTF are you talking about?!

He does the best research in the business.

When was he wrong?

The article he just wrote was spot on. What could possibly be found wrong with it?

the idea that reporters had said Gore invented the internent after he endorsed Dean. When I found six such examples the issue became the word innumerable. If you don't believe me, you can look here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=27823#27847

posts 1 and 7 if they don't come up for you.

Krugman has always been factual.

You listed/linked items said by OTHER PERSONS, not Krugman.

The very idea that Krugman is less than factual is rediculuous.

He is a godsend for progressives and the truth everywhere.

But maybe that is why you attack him.

and learn how to read.

This, for the record, is what I wrote.

It is the they endorsed Dean disease


except for the Gore thing. The press has always hated him. Anyone who endorses Dean will have flaws. We saw it with Ivins (the lady who warned us about Bush became a naive Bush lover), Gore (people who wouldn't piss on Lieberman if he were on fire all of the sudden caring about his hurt feelings), and now Krugman (hack who doesn't do his research). If Ghandi endorsed the man tomorrow we would have stories and then threads about Ghandi the war monger


Ivins is not a naive Bush lover, Ghandi is not a war monger. If you didn't understand that this was a sarcastic take of other people then please by a clue as you desperately need one.

Boy, she really got hated here in a hurry.

The endorsement of doom.

:shrug:

sound familiar??

:hi:

I also agree that Dean's anti-iraq war stance was a calculated political decision and based on his support of biden-lugar and other statements he has made that he would have voted yes on IWR.

DK is the only candidate with true anti IWR credentials.

:hi:

First you evidently forgot that Sharpton and Mosley Braun are running. They were also against the war and the beginning and I have yet to determine any difference between Sharpton and Kucinich on this war.

Second, I would ask you to site where Dean says he would have voted for the war but won't bother as we both know it doesn't exist.

did Sharpton and MB?? or Dean??

Dean's prewar quotes (flip flops) and support for biden lugar have been well documented here...shall we dredge them up again??

and you used the phrase "said he would have voted for the IWR". Do you have a link for that? I don't think so.

As to your first point. Can I then say that none of the other candidates really support civil unions or balanced budgets since none of the candidates had to sign those? Can I claim that none of the other candidates really support appointing liberal judges since none have done so? Sharpton and CMB took strong positions against the war and you are just plain dishonest to say they didn't. And I also think you are being dishonest about Dean but will put that last.

I also agree that Dean's anti-iraq war stance was a calculated political decision and based on his support of biden-lugar and other statements he has made that he WOULD have voted yes on IWR.

it could mean what you are implying. But it also could mean you are stating he said "I would have voted for the IWR".

other than my own perception of events.

He can speak for himself.

PS where is your Kerry graphic?

please try to read more carefully...I am not putting words in anyone's mouth

Iwas just curious as to why you have removed your Kerry graphics.

never had any graphics

And anything to promote my guy and trash the other one.

Disruption, division, circular firing squads, flame-bait threads, the WORKS.

Another beautiful day in the neighborhood.

I have noticed people bashing Dean for claiming to have
Christ in his life. (Which I think is TOTAL bull.)
Pure politicking, and lots here do not like it.

As a personal aside:
Every one knows that NO ONE knows what happens when you die.
Why do we make believe?

It is in a recent thread in this forum.

You don't know what Dean believes and whatever you think happens after death is you business as what I think is mine.

The Iraq war should have never happened. We should have accomplished the goal in another way. Having religion is good or bad depending not on your candidate, but on your belief in God or not and your faith in freedom. Gore is a great man who should have been president, but he made a wrong choice. Krugman is a very smart man.

I don't know who the strawmen are here making these arguments, but I these are my views and Kerry just happens to share them.

I am not sure what wrong choice you think Gore made :shrug:. However Kerry is the king of bad choices. His bad choice gave bush permission to murder thousands of Iraqis.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am happy to be ignored by people who dish it up but can't take it

Who knew we were just getting started?

Support for a resolution that allowed Bush to determine use of force is now anti-Iraq war in Dean speak.

The illegal wars in Central America were now admirable ventures because Dean had mixed feelings about them and couldn't bring himself to condemn Reagan and Bush.

The CATO Institute knows a good, principled Democrat who believes in strong regulatory procedures when it sees one.

The Koch brothers would NEVER involve or compromise a Democratic governor in any of its energy dealings.

The media is just reporting the news and have done nothing to influence the Democratic primary.

I've never understood that part. You seem to be all about non compromising of ideological purity - why in the world would someone of this mind support one of the most blatant compromisers and Quislings in the US congress, John Kerry?

Please explain.

When Dean contradicts himself, then his supporters complain about context. When it is put into context, then all of a sudden its about its face value. When it is put at face value, then apparently it is no longer about face value but what is implied. When the implications are examined and then exposed then it either goes back to the face value or what was supposed to be implied.

Its odd how what Dean says can be made so subjective by his supporters around here.

Gore was criticized for telling other Democrats to abandon the Democratic Process and fall in line behind his chosen caindidate.

There's a big difference between critiquing what someone says and attacking them personally.

And for the record, the way Dean supporters suddenly thought Affirmative Action based on Class not Race was pretty amazing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=27823#27847

Posts 1 through 7 should ring a bell.

we suffer an epidemic of it here.

Julie

or where he advocated trade over protectionism. Lots of bashing when he doesn't agree with a particular viewpoint.

but this would mean ACTUALLY reading what I wrote.

And it's too bad you can't distinguish between critiquing someone and attacking them or being "against them".

"innumerable" pundits Krugman said... when he's talking about superficial journalism.

added to the list, too. Deviate from permissible thought and suddenly, despite years of supporting Democrats, you're considered, at least by some people, nothing but bad news. So it goes.

I am not sure what you mean. I am criticizing the ones who have come here justifying the war to explain their candidate's vote.

I am just really not sure what you mean. So I am not real sure how to respond.

The comments in your original post about religion/secularism and Krugman don't really seem to be relevant to justifying the war. Sounded more like you thought certain people, eg Gore, were disfavored by some based on the candidate they supported. Certainly the other posters on the thread seem to have interpreted your post somewhat more broadly than you appear to have intended.

They were separate thoughts, though rather random.

I was referring to a lot of things. Most seemed to see what I mean. I will explain a little, but I don't feel like arguing.

The war support thing is very big for me. I put the post up in GD regular about the reason we went into Iraq. I really think some people here do not know that it is part of grand scheme.

I can understand some of the newer younger ones not grasping why voting for the war hurt so many of us so badly. It signaled a huge change in our country, and we invaded another country. We don't do that without good cause. I think it is wrong to justify the war to support one's candidate.

I am upset with the way the various supporters have played off the religion thing. My post was on the 26th, so I don't know how it got kicked up. An example: Dean was criticized by Lieberman for not being religious enough. He said he would attempt to explain. He said religion was a private thing to him, but he would talk of it when he needed to do so. He was attacked for secularism and for religion.

The Gore thing was referring to the flurry of anger and bitterness toward him after the endorsement. People on this forum who always respected Gore went after him with a fury.

Krugman was criticized after his editorial. Molly Ivins was suddenly no longer respected here. I think all that is wrong.

In recent weeks I have seen Charlie Rangel denounced as a "hack" and Andrew Young as an "Uncle Tom" for endorsing Clark.

I have also seen loyal Democrats like James Carville and Paul Begala described as sellouts and crypto-republicans for failing to worship at the shrine of St. Howard of the Hamptons, and I have seen an anonymous DUer try to get a member of the forum fired for the same offense.

I have even seen a very prolific, if rather silly, DUer griping about Hollywood figures supporting one of our candidates, a rusty little bit of propaganda boilerplate right out of the Collected Works of Rush Limbaugh.

You're right to complain about all the convenient shifts of opinion here, but the complaint goes both ways.

However, I have always thought something like that of Carville. I did not like his attitude today on Crossfire, but I did not care for him before then. Begala I am not sure about, but I have no legit gripe with him.

I don't know Andrew Young, so I can't say there. I feel like Rangel has always pulled pretty far to the right.

I am not really that liberal about a lot of things, so I guess it is surprising I feel that way.

So the Carville thing with me has nothing to do with Dean. I don't think he needs to be messing with Chavez. Which reminds me I had article to look up for someone.

You are right though, it can work both ways.

So I'm with you on this, believe me. Bill Clinton disappointed me many times, for example, though I still think he was better than any of the alternatives we had at the time.

What I get tired of is people announcing that these loyal Democrats are and always were scum based solely on their candidate choices. It's silly and self-destructive.