The "lofty and aloof muse" posts here so that "many listeners ... [can] most assuredly benefit from [her] profound wisdom. Rated by certain Huff Posters as an "idiot," "stupid," "blind," the Muse is ready for debate!
Many times censored by the moderator! Oooo.
"Are you for real?" one correspondent asks. Yeah, you're darned right I'm real.
"This is a liberal Web site, you moron!" one writer exclaims.
Really? Is it generous? Broad-minded? Are we fellow seekers of Truth?
Ahh, dear Muse -- "Thou art thyself, though not a Montague."

Ask not why words matter, ask when they mattered most
Since words matter, you might have written a few here. And as for presidents and their words, I have been reading the words of Ronald Reagan -- his own words. Reagan is famously libeled here at Huff Po according to various cliches that were current while he was living. But what many of his critics do not know is how prolific a writer Reagan was, in speeches, in letters and in the diary he kept while president. The man you never knew, the great president that history will remember, is there in his own words (not a speech writer's).
I can already hear the complaint. Yes, of course, eventually he did use speech writers as of course his schedule made necessary. But Reagan before the speech writers was a wonderful writer. And his respect for the dignity of individuals and his wonderful sense of empathy made him a very adept editor of his speech writers, bringing their wordsmithing back down to earth, giving it the tone of real speech.
He was a great good man. But don't take my word for it. The Reagan documents are wonderful to read, full of stories about life. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:33:22
Bush details $70 billion war funding request for 2009
Maybe you should revisit the info. Iraq has been in the terrorism business and for a bit longer than evidently you're aware. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:24:43
That of course was Bush's fault. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:23:30
We should definitely build up the infrastructure of a city that is below sea level. It accords so well with the balance of Nature. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:22:49
Yes, just like we subjugated France. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:21:24
Yeah, they'll just hop on a bus in Baghdad. Or step over the bodies of the dead Iraqis as the mayhem begins. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:06:49
US world domination? Are you talking about Hollywood? In what capacity is the US dominating the world? Like the way we made the Europeans support us in Iraq? That worked really great.
If we're dominating the world, we're not getting much bang out of our domination buck. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:05:17
Then where's the money? We started the war because of terrorism. Get real. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:02:54
If it were true that we were neglecting our own infrastructure to build Iraq's I'd be the first to join in the amens. But where's your evidence of this? Last I looked we're up to our eyeballs in cars. We need rather fewer than more highways at this stage, I'd say. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:01:50
Correction: it wasn't sovereign in the first place. Iraq was a dictatorship. As to WMDs, intel from other countries and other US administrations (you know which ones too) also indicated weapons were there. Also, UN inspection continuing after the invasion of Iraq made clear that Saddam had every intention of resuming his weapons production as soon as events permitted. He wouldn't have had to wait too long either, perhaps, since Europeans had been pressing for lifting of economic sanctions in Iraq (chiefly so that they could profit from the resumed trade). posted 05/02/2008 at 16:55:58
You got that right. posted 05/02/2008 at 16:52:49
The 100 years idea is still mis-represented in your comment. I understand you're trying to be fair-minded and objective (and believe me some here, like me, do greatly appreciate it), but McCain in making the "100 years" remark was addressing a specific audience that knew what he was talking about and could appreciate the reference. He meant that we'd have a troop presence similar to what we currently have in Germany and elsewhere. Perhaps you're aware of this, but you phrased things in such a way that the Huffers are going to go livid (well, they will anyway). So I am adding my 2 cents to clarify. posted 05/02/2008 at 16:50:26
Do you really not know? What do you suppose happens to the soldiers if you stop funding the war? Who's side are you on? Who's side is the Democratic party on? posted 05/02/2008 at 16:46:53
You are aware that the Kennedy family is wealthy. Ms. Huffington, our host, is fabulously wealthy. Hollywood actors like the sainted Mr. Clooney are very wealthy because you each pay a fine sum to see their great art. Nancy Pelosi is rich too.
Let's at least admit for the sake of reality, please, that wealthy "elitism" is bi-partisan.
Are you just whining? I'm poor as a church mouse.
And I couldn't be happier. posted 05/02/2008 at 16:41:20
Sorry this topic is too complex for a bumper sticker. However, will just say that the smart oil companies are investing in the next technology and the next energy sources. Should they succeed in their strategies they will remain "big" businesses. If they fail, they won't be big for much longer. posted 05/02/2008 at 16:38:12
"But not: Vietnam and Iraq. Most people know that" is where we part. I would counter that Vietnam and Iraq are not so obvious. The distinction lies in that the wars you cite as obvious are removed enough in time that their controversies are forgotten. Nothing is obvious.
As to domestic programs, much the same can be said. Notably you mention a list of things about which there is litte controversy -- roads, schools -- though how schools are run, what their curricula should or shouldn't include -- or where roads should be located, etc. are less obvious. Chosing the programs etc., yes, is democracy. Though to "promise" people things with the implication that someone else will pay for it is arguably to bribe the voter with their own money (a vice particularly of Dems, but which the GOP practices also).
Tax burdens for the rich .... The rich will still be rich and their income enters the economy one way or the other. I favor having it enter as free enterprise in the form of jobs. That makes me philosophically a Republican. Just not a "rich" one. posted 05/02/2008 at 16:36:30
Assuming your story is true, if you really have a family member in Iraq, I'd recommend you stop reading and posting material at Huff. Huff Po will do nothing for your spiritual well-being. If I were you, I would begin looking for social connections that will support your cousin's decision to serve in uniform and that will bolster the spirits of your family while he's doing his tour of duty.
There's so much venon and ill-will in this forum day in, day out. Find situations and friends that will lift you up. I hope your cousin comes back healthy and proud of his service.
We hear everyday about the casualties, and frankly that's all that Huff Po wants you to hear. They are not going to mention the over one hundred thousand troops who are unharmed. Huff Po portrays our military as victims because at Huff Po everybody is a victim: it's part of the ideology. Proud, idealistic soldiers who come back whole and served their country honorably is not something Huff Po cares about. So, you need a more supportive crowd to hang with, to put it mildly.
Best wishes to you and your American soldier. posted 05/02/2008 at 16:09:23
What price is freedom worth? I'm not asking in reference to the Iraq war, about which I take no stand, either for or against -- and about which debate is pointless now -- we're there.
My question is what price is freedom worth? Our freedom or anybody elses?
And war -- is anything worth fighting for? What kind of war would Democrats feel was worth fighting?
And "domestic programs" -- why are the Dems always talking about "giving" people something (with their own money, by the way). President Kennedy was, evidently, that only Democrat who thought "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Today's Democrats seem to feel their duty to their country consists in endless whining. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:54:30
CNN Poll: George Bush Most Unpopular President In Modern History
"Because Bin Laden was never anything more than an imaginary "boogeyman" invented by BOOOsh, Inc. as a useful propaganda tool, fool."

I was unaware, though I should have been, how out of touch with reality your statements really are. (I'm speaking to the author of the statement above.) Now I see the real pointlessness of further comment. posted 05/01/2008 at 20:21:46
"Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society."
From "The New Republican Party" -- 1977 -- Ronald Reagan posted 05/01/2008 at 20:15:45
Does everything in your world wear a label? posted 05/01/2008 at 20:13:12
You have described it perfectly. posted 05/01/2008 at 20:12:06
There's an impolite word for lumping people together by categories: it's called bigotry.
I've been reading Reagan's diaries, by the way. I'm quite certain you know absolutely nothing about him. Or about the others, either, for that matter. posted 05/01/2008 at 20:05:10
Rather self-serving definition you've got. posted 05/01/2008 at 20:02:54
Do you notice how I am not the one doing the insults here, even as my views are clearly in the minority. posted 05/01/2008 at 20:01:22
Better re-read that history. Not quite. posted 05/01/2008 at 20:00:01
I'm not aware I am defending Bush. Interesting that you suppose that someone who stands outside the hate fest here is therefore his defender. I have no strong feelings about Bush either for or against.
My interest is focused on the election of the next president.
By making my remarks, am I spoiling the party? Rather dismal party it is, I have to tell you. posted 05/01/2008 at 19:55:01
I'm thinking it's a good thing for FDR there was no internet during World War II.
We would have lost. posted 05/01/2008 at 19:27:29
Yes, that much is obvious. posted 05/01/2008 at 19:24:11
There seems to be an obsession with Hitler here at Huff. He seems to be one of the few historical figures that some people are (vaguely) familiar with. Maybe you should widen your reading of history just a tad. posted 05/01/2008 at 19:23:40
I am defining objectivity as the ability to see beyond one's own personal views, to glimpse an understanding of alternative ideas. I am a lot more objective than you. I have little need to "declare" anybody anything. posted 05/01/2008 at 19:21:42
Bitter people think that objectivity is delusional. posted 05/01/2008 at 18:57:26
I don't understand how you can believe there are grounds to impeach anyone. On what charge? Real charges, not the fact that you feel bitterness.
But moreover, what is the point of your questioning? Why is the election of a successor not sufficient relief? One would think this would be the happy era for Bush's critics ... his term is soon to close. posted 05/01/2008 at 18:56:30
I thought I was the only one. Nice to see some objectivity and reasonableness among these posts! posted 05/01/2008 at 18:44:48
But why is the reverse not also true? Why is bin Laden not a recruitment asset here? Maybe the fact that bin Laden cannot recruit as well over here as Bush can recruit over there is part of the reason that "our country is unpopular in the rest of the world." Maybe what we lack is respect -- of the sort given to those who stand up for what they believe. posted 05/01/2008 at 18:42:07
One should point out that half the people being polled presumably voted against Bush and hence were never supporters to begin with. What the poll shows is that Bush's rating has dropped markedly among moderates and conservatives.
Personally, I put no stock in the poll either way. What goes up can come down and vice versa. The real question of significance will be how Bush is viewed after the outcome of events can be known many, many years hence, Post-Iraq.
I'm not making any predictions, by the way. Just trying to introduce some moderation into the hate fest. posted 05/01/2008 at 18:35:33
Defining Insanity
Yes. And somebody please tell me why certain Dems think Hillary is the electable one? Because we can believe her when she says something? If she lies about landing in Bosnia -- like going there wasn't good enough in itself -- it needed some really neon embellishments -- WHY should we believe her about anything important? posted 05/02/2008 at 17:37:25
Absolutely. Amen. Well said. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:12:53
If the only way your candidate can win is by attacking freedom of speech, then your candidate deserves to lose. posted 05/02/2008 at 15:08:46
You must have given them bad advice. "If Democrats want to win, we have to start defining McCain now. "
Why not define your own candidate instead. Why not someone to vote for rather than someone to vote against.
Can you not think of reasons to vote for, anymore? (Hint: one problem with the Dems: they're so negative.) posted 05/02/2008 at 15:05:11
"The Bush campaign spent $70 million in April of 2004 to define John Kerry as a flip flopper, weak on defense, and weird." But Kerry was a flip flopper, face it. The shoe fit. What's wrong with spending money to spread an important message about a candidate. It's not the ads that were the problem: it was the product the Dems were selling. Get better candidates, get votes. How hard is that. Stop blaming the opposition and take a good hard look at "yourself" (so to speak).
Plenty of money will be spent to connect McCain to Bush. If that connection works, perhaps McCain loses .... If the connection is valid, perhaps citizens will vote against McCain.
Or not. Who knows. Lots of McCain supporters are actually divided over whether McCain or Obama best represents their views. Did you not know that? A lot of people are sick of divisiveness. A lot of people are weary of partisanship. Some of us want to be Americans again (hence our interest in flag pins). You don't like my fondness for symbolism? You trample upon my love of my country? Fine, I'll vote for the candidate that cares what I think.
Start caring about what citizens want, about what voters think -- a broad spectrum of voters, not just your little coteries of like-minded people.
Preach to something other than the choir, and who knows? You might end up with an even bigger choir.
Seems to me the choice is yours. posted 05/02/2008 at 14:46:09
The New Security
All the evidence. Let's not be coy. Perhaps you should share some of the preponderance of evidence before you lead the charge, friend. When there's SO much of it. It shouldn't be difficult.
I for one am not buying what you're selling. posted 04/29/2008 at 18:48:45
These facts also illustrate how destructive it is for political "strategists" and spin-doctors to make security a partisan issue. "
Thank you, thank you -- a thousand times -- thank you for saying this.
While we're at it, let's stop making "the environment" a partisan issue or health care or any of the other modern problems that could be solved through cooperation.
Enough of the continual horserace between Democrats and Republicans. How about an era of statemanship, civility and American idealism?
Thank you Senator Hart. posted 04/29/2008 at 18:44:51
Lear on the Heath
Bajaboy, Just dropped by to say I tried to address your questions of the earlier post as well as I might, given our very different points of view. However, I am sorry that my comments angered you. Can I not perhaps persuade you that the spectrum of opinions doesn't have to be all or nothing. There are lots of nuances too. It might surprise you that I too am considering voting for Obama. posted 04/30/2008 at 20:39:16
Probing a Political Paradox: Why the Discredited Right Still Sets the Agenda and Dominates the Debate
Well, it's an interesting question, certainly. And I've pondered the possibilities but have determined that it can't be so, Indy, cause all my exs live in Texas. posted 04/30/2008 at 12:50:02
Sure. posted 04/29/2008 at 20:56:02
Which one? posted 04/29/2008 at 20:54:37
Don't worry you're not alone. Ol' Reagan didn't win by landslides by chance. posted 04/29/2008 at 20:19:07
indypete,
Yours indeed is an excellent answer. However, there is the possibility that "this" is it. This might not be repeatable. Reality might just be reality. Time moving in one direction only creating "this." Unrepeatable "this."
Science indeed provides demonstration of various "laws" regarding forces that act in predictable ways. But life and particularity are perhaps not of the same category of things. Consciousness, ideas, spirit. Science has little to say of the first and nothing to say of the last two.
Still, I like your fine, very fine, response. posted 04/29/2008 at 20:16:45
That's better. Thank you. posted 04/29/2008 at 19:44:51
Why do you say there's no evidence? I see plenty of evidence. posted 04/29/2008 at 19:41:50
Maybe those are not the person's own actual views. Perhaps it's someone writing as a provocateur, pretending to be an apologist for intelligent design just so that you can knock the straw man down. Do remember that nearly everything you read here is posted anonymously and usually without overmuch use of fact or reference. And if there is an easily refuted straw man, what does that say about an argument at its strong core? Hmm? Why waste your time tossing out somebody else's evidence, let's see yours. Are there no alternatives to evolution? Is it dogma now? What are the alternatives to evolution? Do you even know? posted 04/29/2008 at 19:35:14
I like McCain myself. But I think your comment is funny. Thought you'd like to know. That's if Arianna's censor will let you read my remarks. I have offended them again. Alas. They are so picky. posted 04/29/2008 at 19:29:10
Dear Censor,
Hope you are well.
In your spare time, just wanted to recommend some reading to you. You're a college student? Maybe you haven't gotten around to this one yet. It's John Milton's "Areopagitica" -- it's one of the reasons that we have freedom of speech in the United States (a place that is distinct from the internet where not all speech -- not even all civil speech -- is allowed). You might want to read Milton. He's passionate. He's instructive. He's a moral teacher. He's free (the book is available online now).
And, by the way, he's a much more entertaining writer than Ms. Huffington. Even if this site does have fantastic web design. Please tell the web designers (not to be confused with intelligent designers) just in case they cannot read this remark for themselves (you know, like if you don't post it).
Thanks, ever yours, the Muse posted 04/29/2008 at 19:24:51
Aparently devolution is fact to. Get used to it! The evidence is right here. Oh, but you'll say I'm "right wing" and I'm easy to refute. posted 04/29/2008 at 19:06:04
It's a paradox: the political center has clearly shifted -- thanks for the heads up, Arianna. Now you just need to get the word out to the 300,000 million Americans who don't know they're Libs! Darn, why are we always the last to know? I'm going out right now to change all the bumper stickers on my car. I'm gonna do it right now. Just as soon as I take down my American flag. posted 04/29/2008 at 18:54:40
Obama is Dems Only Answer
The idea that Republicans are rich is a stereotype. I'm sure not rich. I agree with half of what you've written. Conservatives do in fact "blame America" -- for moral laxness, for instance. Certainly our cultural artifacts in the forms of cinema and rock music with the scantily clad female does not play well in straight-laced Arab countries. Our sense of individual freedom doesn't play too well with their clerics, either -- though it is appealing to their publics. Some of what we export in the realm of ideas is very threatening to other cultures and would seem to them to undermine everything they believe.
Do we give up freedom of speech for their benefit? Even when our speech is immoral?
You tell me.
A buck in it explains Hollywood as much as it does oil dollars. And last time I looked, Hollywood was Dem city.
Still, I think you and I agree about more than we disagree. I'm guessing we'd both like to see both parties take the high road for a change and roll up their sleeves and start looking for solutions instead of indulging the endless game of assigning blame. posted 04/28/2008 at 18:33:56
There are some Reagan Democrats! And many more Reagan Republicans! But this is not a bad thing. Some might even vote for your guy (if you play nice!)
But to your sentiment generally -- a hearty Amen!
Time to be Americans. posted 04/28/2008 at 13:48:33
Hello kind Lemeritus, and greetings to a very fine representative of all that is good and nobel of the left-leaning folks!
Best wishes, Muse posted 04/28/2008 at 13:46:35
"Another way to put it, whatever concerns exist surrounding Obama's viability pale in comparison to those of Clinton; she cannot win. I say this not as an Obama supporter or Clinton detractor but as a political observer. Obama is the Democrats only hope to end eight years of Oval Office exile. " Speaking as someone who has supported President Bush, I couldn't agree more.
And I would add to this observation that if Obama wishes to get votes from moderates, independents and Republicans, he needs to begin to distance himself from the left-wing of his party and speak to middle America -- to common-sense loving, fair-minded Americans who want to see this country succeed, who believe in the American dream, who love freedom.
The blame-America-first crowd is the lead weight that sinks the Dems. Obama's first obstacle will be a tough one: distancing himself from his own wife's ill-advised remarks. Americans will be forgiving of a man standing up in defense of his wife, but will want to know that Mrs. Obama was not speaking for candidate Obama.
Americans who are already dead against Obama will keep hammering about Rev. Wright. But there are plenty of reasonable and serious Americans who will give Obama a fair shake. And after that, let the best man win.
It's time for the Dems to be "for" something. Being always "against" is just tiresome, rudderless whining. posted 04/27/2008 at 19:38:21
Former Radical Tom Hayden Details Clinton's 60s Past
Obviously I am not referring to your friend. How could I possibly be referring to your friend? You are projecting the sadness you feel about losing him upon me.
Lots of people came of age in the 60s. The media made hay about a small subsection who liked to do outrageous things for the cameras. Some of them also enjoyed blowing things up. Or robbing a Brinks truck and killing the security guards -- for their "cause." I am not relying solely on media accounts. I know someone who was there.
I'm sorry for your loss, but it has nothing to do with my comments. Still I express my sympathy. It's a great tribute to your friend that you are remembering him this way. posted 04/28/2008 at 18:48:33
I agree if Clinton wins, idealism will have to wait another 4 years.
But I disagree that students who go to college to study are apathetic. We also disagree about activism as idealism. It was an ego trip. Plenty of people do real works of kindness and goodwill everyday without sounding trumpets. Did then and do now.
Are you young? "Obama's the only thing we've ever supported en masse...." He's the only thing you know. Read some history. Learn a little. Live some. Have an open mind.
I'm not criticising Obama. I'm just saying that it's easy to be "passionate" about something when you are patently unaware of the alternatives. posted 04/28/2008 at 18:40:01
Idealistic? Boy, you need a primer on 60s politics. Nothing could have been more self-serving and sanctimonious than the 60s radicals. And they grew up and brought us Political Correctness. McCarthyism? Yeah. Try being a dissenter in today's academic world. See how quick your name becomes mud. posted 04/27/2008 at 19:10:02
President Bush Speech At White House Correspondent's Dinner: Watch Video
People can solve problems when they find paths to compromise. Politics is all about peoples' opinions. But the problems themselves admit of practical solutions. Until people get beyond the conflict of personalities and viewpoints, they cannot find the common ground upon which solutions depend. posted 05/02/2008 at 12:32:20
Well, clearly you feel very strongly. But why should people let their feelings about politics, which is really a fairly remote thing from one's day to day life, cast such a long dark shadow over everything else that people might find in the way of common ground? Life is so much a larger sphere. And I thought you were an admirer of Obama? He is campaigning on the idea of trying to bring people together. Clearly he cannot accomplish that if people cling to bitterness about the past. You have your reasons, I'm sure, which are your own business. But still one might hope to see the country get beyond these divides.
In any case, thank you for taking the time to come back and respond. Perhaps we'll find other topics on other posts where our ideas admit some compromise. posted 05/01/2008 at 17:54:56
Let's respectfully disagree. I don't think I can answer your questions in a manner that you will accept. We have very different points of view. posted 04/30/2008 at 12:55:34
bajaboy
I'm sorry to have ignited your bitterness by my comments. We simply disagree. While you may know may middle aged women who have served (past tense), even with the difficulty in getting Iraq replacements, I'm pretty sure the military is not signing up middle aged recruits. I would definitely flunk boot camp.
So, back to fundamentals: our system of government is civilian run and surely you are not arguing that it should be otherwise, I hope. Why military forces in Iraq now? Simple answer. To prevent chaos. Whether it was wise to engage in war is a pointless debate now. We have responsibilities to Iraq and its citizens and to our own soldiers who have already done their share and need new units to take over the burden now.
I do not agree even about your accessment of Cheney. Cheney has served his country very honorably for a long time, and his tenure as vice president has been particularly demanding.
People of goodwill can disagree about policies. I wish you were able to understand that. In any case, you served in Vietnam and I respect that. I also respect that soldiers injured in this war should not have their service made of nought. It is better for the US and for Iraq and for them if we win.
I'm for winning. Even now. posted 04/29/2008 at 17:34:37
I have volunteered in a military health care setting in the past and have been thinking lately about doing it again.
I have no "neo-con" buddies. Actually my closest friends are all Dems. posted 04/29/2008 at 17:26:09
Thanks for your supporting remark. I am also mystified about that part of the Obama demographic that you describe. There is also something blood-thirsty about some of the advocates of "peace." Their are some peace proponents that I definitely would not wish to encounter in the proverbial dark alley.
However, I will say this -- bitter people of whatever stripe hold their feelings for a reason. I try to be willing to hear people out and hope that others will hear me out too. It's the first step in learning to understand others.
Thanks again for your comment. posted 04/28/2008 at 19:47:09
bajaboy Part 1
I reply to your comment here at the top of the thread. You ask: "Just out of curiosity, how much time did you spend in the military, oh lofty and aloof muse?" I have not spent any time in the military. Are you suggesting that women should fight wars now, if men are unwilling to do so? Or, do you realize that according to your logic al Quida has a greater moral clarity about war than we do: since their fighters volunteer with, evidently, some eagerness whereas you are suggesting that non-soldiers in a democracy should play no role in decisions to go to war.
Our entire system of government is predicated upon the idea of government "by the people, for the people" and hence necessarily implies that decisions concerning war will be determined by non-soldiers. The opposite system is the junta, where armed men take power and wield it.
Perhaps you should make your own position more clear. As for me, I am not a soldier and never have been. As a middle aged woman, I am hardly a candidate to fight a war effectively.
While I thank you for your own willingness to serve your country for 20 years, including doing duty in Vietnam, I do not believe that your service constitutes a rule to take away my right in a democracy to support an action that I think our country needs. posted 04/28/2008 at 18:21:17
Bajaboy Part 2
Right now our soldiers need replacement troops, and I think our leaders ought to be asking volunteers to step forward. Some kind of transitional military presence will be required in Iraq for some time to come, as any realistic appraisal of the circumstances makes obvious. In contrast, when Clinton says she would bring troops home "within 2 months" of assuming office, she is lying. She is lying as clearly as she was about the sniper fire.
If you require me to serve in combat (to have an opinion), then require it of her as well. And Obama, too. McCain has already served. posted 04/28/2008 at 18:20:36
I am quite willing to believe that you do. But for the sake of debate, it is helpful to cite one's sources.
Best wishes, for now. Gotta go. Tomorrow's a school day. posted 04/27/2008 at 20:23:05
Hope you're not a lawyer. Got to tell you, this is not evidence. posted 04/27/2008 at 20:21:57
Take the high road, why don't you. posted 04/27/2008 at 20:21:21
I get my troop stats from the Washington Post.
Meanwhile, I cannot show you where the humor is. Humor is in the heart of the one who laughs. You think I'm psychotic, fine. I think you could be somewhat less Puritanical. posted 04/27/2008 at 20:20:26
I answer you in a new thread at the top. posted 04/27/2008 at 19:59:59
PDXtransplant

Why do I not post at websites more in line with my own views? One: because I am not interested in a rah, rah session. Two: I know of no website that represents my views (which are liberal views, small "l"). And because I am not afraid of views that differ from my own, and indeed I enjoy learning what others think. However, I would urge them to think. When you are just spouting the expected thing, you really have no views. One becomes merely a carbon copy of the prevalent views. That's one carbon footprint to which I do not wish to contribute. posted 04/27/2008 at 19:59:06
"The time for civility is over or nearly so and if you cannot see that, then you may be part of the problem. Forgiveness is earned, not due. Just like respect. " I'll take a wild guess. You're not a Christian are you?
Oh, and you need to lighten up. posted 04/27/2008 at 19:54:28
What crimes? We have former soldiers doing time for actual war crimes. And we have 130,00 soldiers who put their lives on the line for their country.
Propaganda technique? I just call 'em like I see them, friend.
How much am I getting paid? How much are they paying you to be a citizen? Being American is supposed to mean not asking what your country can do for you. I ask myself what I can do for my country and for our soldiers and the answer that I see is to "speak truth to power" -- so I'm telling the Huff crowd that you might have the mainstream media in your pocket as well as the way out in left field Huff crowd, but there's a very large demographic that possesses common sense.
You aren't going to fool them. posted 04/27/2008 at 19:04:53
Hitler as analogy. Wow. How original. I'm impressed. Really.
Banality of evil? Yeah, I think you just described your own post. A little evil. A petty kind of little evil that thinks it's "okay" to lie about a man and tarnish his reputation. posted 04/27/2008 at 19:00:13
How do you know that any of the things that you attribute to Bush are even true? I remember reading that actually Bush did better academically than one of his rivals, Senator Kerry. posted 04/27/2008 at 18:25:34
Explain the blunder to me, ye all knowing one. posted 04/27/2008 at 18:23:51
I talked to actual soldiers. Yesterday. They were there. I'm proud of them. It is hiding behind reality. And to refine terms a bit: I did not say that I support the war, actually. About the war, I am equivocal. I suppose it will all depend upon how things turn out whether one decides the war was a good thing or not.
What I said is that I support the soldiers. And I do. I support them as much as I know how. I wish the leaders in this country would start asking others to come forward and serve so that the soldiers in Iraq now could get relief. New troops to replace ones that have done their part. posted 04/27/2008 at 18:22:17
If the media, which is deeply biased against Bush, showed more of these aspects of the president's personality, I suspect that his poll ratings would be much higher. Ratings are fickle things anyway, but decidely so when the media filters so much information. And something like Huff Po or Fox News represent filters added to filters, so that partisans can see the world they wish to see -- as opposed to the more complicated and messy and more interesting world as it is. posted 04/27/2008 at 18:12:59
Exactly when did Bush "make light of murdering" anyone? Show me the reference -- other than in your imagination.
Bush has seen wounded soldiers from Iraq face to face. Soldiers know that some of them will get killed. It is a war, after all. You diminish their sacrifice by your small minded pacifism that really isn't peace.
Meanwhile, in what sense is "conservative" such a bad word? In regard to traditions? Good manners? Culture? Civility? Respect for elders?
It's the need to label everything that is so petty. Liberalism is supposed to refer to generosity and broad-mindedness (neither of which qualities are much in evidence here). And conservatism refers to a reference for the past and for things of long, reliable use whose values have been demonstrated over time. Both qualities are essential in a civilization, so no one ought feel insulted by either term. posted 04/27/2008 at 18:09:45
Thank you. Yes, "liberal" means something different from what many folks here seem to think.
Yet, I believe that as citizens we need to learn how to talk to each other -- to have conversations beyond the various divides in our culture. That's the reason I post at Huff Po.
Humor and forgiveness. Yes! Those are wonderful virtues. I'd like to think that both are central to the American spirit. posted 04/27/2008 at 17:51:44
Petsounds
Yes, I know the difference between a so-called "liberal" Web site (illiberal "liberalism" would be more accurate). As proof I offer the observation that you won't find me calling anyone a "moron." Name calling is not a virtue among members of my demographic.
Meanwhile, perhaps I can offer another observation: that lumping people all together "Limbaugh, Hannity" et al amounts to little more than racism.
I don't get my ideas from either of the sources you name. In fact, I couldn't tell you what Limbaugh or Hannity believe. I suspect you know more about them than I do.

Oh, and some citizens actually think for themselves and don't "get" their opinions pre-canned from any source. posted 04/27/2008 at 17:48:55
I'm getting a little tired of the "international war crimes" routine, which is definitely NOT FUNNY. Thinking about the soldiers I spoke to yesterday, I guess you think they are quilty of "war crimes" too? Following orders, etc.
This generation's "anti-war" crowd isn't really so different from that of the 60s. The only difference is that they keep their contempt for the military under the surface.
But the truth is that the US military is the most amazing force the world has seen. When I see the idealism and professionalism of US soldiers it just amazes me.
They get nothing like the respect they deserve from this country. They are America's finest. posted 04/27/2008 at 17:44:38
Not all our guys are dying in Iraq. In fact I spoke to some soldiers yesterday that did tours in Iraq and they were very much alive and well. Some folks on the left seem to emphasize death in Iraq precisely because they wish for Iraq to be a failure, because their world view requires an America that fails.
The soldiers I spoke to were quite proud of their service -- as well they should be. posted 04/27/2008 at 17:40:49
Devadasi

How right you are! It is so yesterday. This, friend, is what civility looked like. Once upon a time .... posted 04/27/2008 at 14:18:56
incredulousGeezer
Two questions: how old does one have to be to qualify for geezerdom?

And why and about what are you incredulous? posted 04/27/2008 at 14:15:22
I'm very surprised and pleased that Huff Po has included this, usually the human side of the opposition party is something they jealously try to prevent the faithful from seeing. I suppose it's a tribute to the closed mindedness typical of this forum that Huff's editors feel secure that nothing will make their flock budge from their narrow minded contempt for the GOP -- so they figure "what the heck?"
But, there he is. Bush is human. He's even funny. Here's a little peek at how the man got elected, at the qualities that impressed his constituents. Take heed, however, that you not watch with anything like an open mind! God forbid you should embrace diversity! Or to tip toe closer to the family of man!
I look forward to scorn and abuse from the usual suspects. (You know who you are!) posted 04/27/2008 at 13:53:19
DNC Iraq McCain Ad Sparks Controversy: Watch Video
rivrgrrl very obviously and deliberately misinterpreted my remarks. Germany and Japan clearly "benefitted" by losing WW II. That much is patently obvious. I don't think one has to be "conservative" to see the obviousness of it. posted 04/29/2008 at 18:19:09
curmudgeon3, I'm not a historian. The presence of US military in Germany obviously serves different ends now. Lots of military or government employees or officials have been evacuated there, for instance, in emergencies from other "neighboring" parts of the world (such as Africa or the Middle East). The geo-political advantages of having a military presence in Europe has served our ends militarily since WW II and has provided protection to Europe and enhanced European security.
Wise counsel? Come on. Am I supposed to trade insults with people? I do not pretend to any expertise. I am a citizen sharing my views like everybody else. I don't understand your sarcasm.
However, communism has affected the US directly in the 9/11 attacks. Al quida and similar Arab groups, also Iran's revolution, have been influenced by communist ideology. This doesn't seem to be widely known, but "Marxism" of a sort has influenced Islamacist thought. posted 04/29/2008 at 18:16:37
Are you anti-war in all circumstances? Or is war sometimes necessary? (Not Iraq, but war generally)
Hamletsmill, I would point out that I was not glorifying war. Please do not put words into my mouth. Nor have I been a defender of this war, in other comments that you might not be familiar with, I said I was undecided regarding the merits of the Iraq war. Monday morning quarterbacking is not much of a sport. All I have argued is our responsibility now to the citizens of Iraq to deal with the situation that our invasion has created.
If decades from now Iraq is free, Bush will be Iraq's version of George Washington. And if chaos reigns, Bush will not be anybody's hero. I just do not claim to have a crystal ball. Some here saw failure from the beginning -- because they wanted to see it -- because they were bitter.
I just do not endorse that bitterness.
I am also not quick on bravado. Revisit my comments. There is no bravado. You project that into my remarks. It is not there.
I never served in the military, I'm however an "Air Force brat." My father is a WW II veteran. posted 04/29/2008 at 18:04:59
You may well be correct in your pre-war analysis. But that is water under the bridge. posted 04/29/2008 at 17:57:56
I'm astonished at your remark. You don't think the US could win in Iraq. Not that the war has been managed badly, about which I think you'd have a good argument, but that it was impossible to start. The parameters for winning in Iraq were very doable. One would think that the serious criticism of Bush would be leveled at that fact. posted 04/29/2008 at 17:55:52
I answered this comment at the top of the thread and forgot to say so. It's now lost in a string of comments posted after yours. Anyway, I have thought about posing as a very polite "progressive" at "conservative" sites just to see if the reaction is similar to what I encounter here -- just as a matter of curiosity. I suspect there are die-hards who get angry at both and lots of moderate folks who are willing to hear an opposing view -- just as here. But would be interesting to find out. Would need to check the issues with my progressive friends to make sure I got the tone correct.
I have noticed here (and I recommend this to anyone who might be listening!) that you get more thoughtful responses when you address people with respect. They open up more and tell more of what they really think. And, hence, one learns more about others of a different point of view by addressing questions in a courteous way. I still get called an idiot plenty. But I try to ignore those remarks. There's plenty of intelligent and polite replies also. posted 04/29/2008 at 17:53:02
curmudgeon3
You say: "Try the same websites with which, as a self-proclaimed moderate, you must surely be familiar. If you are still perplexed, try doing a web search for Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Glen Beck, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, and Michelle Malkin. That should be good for starters. ....Their many listeners could most assuredly benefit from your profound wisdom as well."
Might surprise you to know that I have never heard of four of the people on your list: Ingraham, Beck, Boortz, & Savage. I have heard of Limbaugh and Malkin, but am unacquainted with their views. You appear to know more about the fearsome Right wing fringe, than I do. I've seen O'Reilly's show enough to know that he's biased but does give air time to opponents, as does Hannity. I read Coulter's book "Godless" and one of Richard Dawkins's books together.
I have thought about making an experiment of posting to a "right-wing" site pretending to be a "progressive," and using the same courteous language that I use here to see if they react differently or to discover whether they are as rabid as some Huff post folks. My guess is that I'll find a kind of mirror image of Huff. Would be an interesting experiment. You really want me to try and report back to the Huffers? In earnest? posted 04/28/2008 at 19:10:53
Justrealty is describing a situation that really exists to this day. We still have troops in Germany and Japan, as well as other places.
In contrast, you are describing make-believe. Very persuasive. Yeah. posted 04/27/2008 at 20:17:33