(Wanna help? Start here.)
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
I hope this is not too of topic, but I would like to call everyone’s attention to What is happening in Burma. The moral issue shere are utterly clear and yet NO candidate is asking the obvious questions about where we stand or how can we help.
For those who do not know, there is another wrinkle here. The irony of Burma is that its major religion. Theravada Buddhism, may be the most anti-violent religion in the world. Its followers claim, with some reason, to be the direct product of Siddartha Gautama, the man called “Buddha”. A man who taught humility and tolerance as a basis for the deepest achievement.
To those of use who respect Theravada, the conflict between peaceful monks and their military overlords, seems almost biblical.
Just to expiate my conscience for posting something non Darcy here, I will add to my contributions to her campaign. She better win, I am not the Buddha and I have become attached to her victory (pun intended).
Since SJ is off-topic, allow me:
Our own famous, fatuous gas-bag, Scott Pooper, has so enraged Danny Westneat, that he gets his own, special references in today’s TIMES:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....nny23.html
Now getting hissed at by the TIMES for being too gassy is quite an honor. He trolls far and wide, it seems.
@3…Chadt…
Danny wasn’t enraged…Actually, he and I had a most enjoyable 48-minute phone conversation preceded by a couple lengthy emails back and forth where we respectfully and candidly exchanged POV’s.
That’s called civil dialogue and debate…You might want to look it up in the encyclopedia.
In our exchange, he made some good points, and so did I. We still have a difference of opinion, but each of us is now richer for the exchange.
In re Darcy? For every General, naval captain (is that what he was? The graphic flashed to quickly and in print too small – I am 57 after all – to catch it), and army captain she can trot out, I’ll be there are 20 or more currently on active duty who hold a contrary POV.
Darcy Burner is NOT mainstream…
The Piper
Piper. What position does Darcy hold that is not “main stream” as you say?
@5 add my question to that. While you are at it, tell us that .. as a true conservative .. you WILL support the only real republican in the prexy race ..HRC!
Ans not t leave off ny theme .. how comes it that all thes holy rolly publicans are IGNORING 10,000 monks marching for freedom?
I thought their religious patriotism was why we went into Iraq?
Oh, and by the way “Captain,” FWIW I hold the rank of Commander in the USN. We cxall you guys, as you know, Lieutenants.
Piper Scott @ 4,
“That’s called civil dialogue and debate…You might want to look it up in the encyclopedia.”
And THAT is what you call “snarky dialog.” You’re really no different than anyone else around here in that regard, are you? :-)
“For every General, naval captain,…and army captain she can trot out, I’ll be there are 20 or more currently on active duty who hold a contrary POV.”
Oh…really? And what evidence do you base this on? It seems that recently retired Generals, Captains, etc., who are completely free to speak their mind, are frequently in agreement that the war has been a disaster and that we need to find a way out sooner rather than later. (It is hard to make much of what is said by those still in service, since there have been a number high-profile forced retirements from those who dissent).
“Darcy Burner is NOT mainstream…”
Really? By that, are you trying to claim that most Americans are not fed up with the war? Most don’t see it as a disaster? Most don’t want the U.S. out?
The fact is, the most recent polls show that 65% of Americans think the Iraq invasion was a mistake (Source).
But…lets look at recent polls on troop withdrawl:
The one thing that a majority of Americans (57%) agrees with Bush on is that The Surge™ troops should come home, but that is no surprise as 54% want to bring the troops home versus 39% who want to keep ’em there (Source: PEW Poll).
About 60% of Americans want a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq (Source: Gallup Poll).
68% of Americans want troops reduced or removed from Iraq, and 47% of the 83% who responded (i.e. 57% of those with an opinion about it) say President George W. Bush’s plan for troop reductions does not go far enough. (Source: CBS Poll.)
While I don’t exactly know what you meant by “Darcy is not mainstream,” (or was this some cheap bullshit you pulled out of your ass?), it appears that Ms. Burner’s work to find a rational and expeditious way out of the quagmire we call Iraq is certainly consistent with the opinions of most Americans.
So by they way, what is Bush’s strategy for victory in Iraq? Piling the corpses so high that the Iraqis can not even get through the piles of the dead to attack each other? Maybe have every single Iraqi move to a refugee camp in Iran, or Syria? Worse? If this war could be managed worse, I am sure the Bush Crime Family would find a way to do it, all with the help of today’s Republicon Party.
What I love the most about this wonderful war is how Bush sent all those children to manage the reconstruction. The only requirement was to be pro life (sic) and to have voted for Bush.
You all have to read about Dan Rather’s firing at gregpalast.com. Anyone in the press that questioned the Bush Gang got trashed for years.
This is not democracy, it is Fascism.
Maybe someone should ask Darcy if she thinks that giving tax cuts that mostly benefit the super rich, and doubling the national debt was a good idea. Remember, when the Chimperator was sworn in, we had a surplus.
Even today on Meet the Press, Greenspan said they were worried about “paying off” the national debt. Bush had to do something.
Better yet, ask Reichert if he supported doubling our national debt, and owing trillions to Red China. I would love to watch him say “I do not have enough awareness of the subject of the national debt to reply” or something.
Bush, and the Republicons sure put an end to paygo legislating didn’t they!
Imagine if we doubled the weapons inspectors in Iraq, as Hans Blix wanted to do, and spent all those trillions making Afghanistan look like a paradise….. Oh well….. Our children can pay for Bush’s bloodlust….
I give credit to Darcy for at least thinking of maybe coming up with a plan in the future by lots of people sitting around and table and talking. It is far more than anyone in the Dem party has done. So far it is has been lots of wind, no substance.
The facts on the ground seem to contradict her, but that hasn’t stopped the Dems from wanting to declare defeat and run. The Sunnis are clearing out Al Qaeda from their villages, the Syrians aren’t getting as many recruits to cross the border and disrupt things, suicide bombings are down.
Has anyone looked at what the Iraqis are saying about our presence? Yes, they want us gone. No, they don’t want us gone right now. They know they die if we leave too soon. I’m sure Darcy will take that into account when she comes up with her super nifty plan.
@11 Janet
Sorry, you should cite sources if yu say thing this farfrom what most reports tell us.
1. The el Qaeda you refer to are indigenous folks who see themselves as overthrowing a corrupt warlord systrem. But yes, the Sunni Warlords want to overthrow these folks. Is that good or bad? Didn’t we fight a war to overthrow the Sunni war lord?
Gen. Pet advocated siding with the Warlords several year ago. He was overidden by Bush and Romney,
2. There never has been any evidence that the insurgency was largely due ot foreign fighters from Syria or anyplace else.
As far as anything i have read, Syria is not a major source of foreign fighters. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are more important sources.
Even if there are “foreigners, who the hell are YOU to say who should and should not be in Iraq?? To the extent there are foreigners (other than the US and Brits) in Iraq, they are ARABS and under Islamic law, all Muslims belong to a single poeple. BTW .. you do know there were substantial French foreign fighters in the US revolution??
3. The “Iraquis” overwhelmingly want peace and security. Petraeus sees that a shis tactical goal. The probl,e he has is that he works for Bush and Bush ahs not stated goal that makes any sense.
Contrast this with the stance shared by HRC, BO, and Biden. Each of these have presented statesmanlike, realistic stands on what we need to do to do the best for the US and Iraq, All the Res seem to want is something they can call Victory.
Last time the US wa sin this position, Richard Nixon said e would give the US Victory in VietNam. We lost. This loss will be worse unless some adult replaces Bush.
Someone tell Janet S we lost the war in Iraq the day Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court.
How could we possibly prevail in Iraq, when our current president has not been able to do one single thing right since taking office. You expect him to win a war, or have a successful occupation. Remember sending all those college kids over to manage the reconstruction, while Rumsfeld was pushing the torture at Abu Gharib?
The Bush Presidency, with the Republicon control of congress has been a disaster for our country by ANY measure.
The best thing we could do about Iraq would be to prosecute the people that lied us into this war, and beg the world to help us clean up the mess. Killing thousands more of our soldiers, or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is not any solution, but it appears to be Bush’s plan.
Tell you what Janet. To help you understand the scope of the problem, I will pile a million Iraqi corpses on your lawn. Maybe that would snap you out of your lemming like state of denial. In a couple more years I may have 2 million Iraqi corpses….. 3 million?
When it comes to the murder of innocent people in other countries, I am sure you won’t object right? It is not like all them men, women, and children, who have died because of “US” didn’t have WMD’s now is it? Al Queda ties? Helped in 9-11?
Why is it ok for “Us” to kill a million innocent people (through bombing, incompetence, or lack of caring) in Iraq, but it is not ok for Bin Laden to kill a few thousand innocent Americans? Is an American life worth more? If you say yes, then you understand why they fly planes into our buildings.
Hey, Lack of Facts, I guess if you had a legitimate argument, you wouldn’t hide behind all the snide attacks.
Where do you get your numbers of 1+ million? The Lancet published an estimate, which had a very large range. The top of the range was considered way out of line, and it was less than half a million. Their methodology was shown to be highly faulty, by the British media, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1920984,00.html
What also is not published when lefties start reporting fatalities is how many of those were killed by Al Qaeda, Iranians, or Syrians, or how many of them were homegrown terrorists. A suicide bomber is a terrorist, regardless of where he comes from, unless he was the unwilling victim of the actual terrorist who was to chicken to strap the bomb on himself.
Hey, Lack of Facts, why do the Iraqis want us to stay there until stability is reached? Why are you so intent on having millions slaughtered? Ask Brian Baird, he figured it out.
Oh, and if I didn’t mention it before, Darcy has quite a smug smirk. She must be taking style lessons from Hillary. Both assume they are smarter than all of us put together. That’s why they like big government solutions to problems. They think the elite have the answers, and they are the elite.
Catch the part where Hillary says you have to prove you have health insurance to get a job? That’s right up there with putting doctors in jail who try to go into the wrong speciality, or accept payment for services rendered. Only someone with no experience in the real world, outside of scam artists and crooks, would propose this kind of stuff.
Darcy is sitting at her knee, looking lovingly in her eye. She has no attachment to her community, but wants to big national stage. She wants what makes her look good, but probably couldn’t tell you the name of her next door neighbor. Or what school district she lives in. But she is loved by the Nutroots. OOOOH!
#15 — Smarter than you, by far.
Why Darcy Burner isn’t “mainstream.”
She’s supported by netroots who, themselves, aren’t mainstream.
Her POV on the Patriot Act doesn’t reflect or respect concerns Americans have for national security and the real threat of future terrorist attacks.
Her position on taxes is too far left. The top 50% of income earners pay some 96%+ in all taxes, with the top 5% paying over half of all taxes paid…
Don’t raise taxes…cut spending!
SJ…if you were serious about holding a commission in the USN, then I both thank you and honor you for your service. Policy and ideology disagreements aside, any man or woman who wears the nation’s uniform deserves respect for that…This includes you, non-active duty officers critical of the war, those who support it, my sons, Gen. Petraeus, and others.
Darcy may be “mainstream” in Fremont or Capital Hill, but not in the broadest sense throughout America. Remember, Democrats are in the majority in Congress not because they ran left and govern left, but because many, including Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, ran as centrists with many conservative positions (gun rights, in his case, being quite notable), and they portray themselves as centrists, not as beholden to the netroots.
Even Nancy Pelosi is too conservative, per the netroots. Witness the challenge by Cindy Sheehan.
If Darcy was mainstream, she would be in office. That in a blue state in the bluest of blue elections and in what many consider to be an increasingly blue Congressional district, she still got beat says something more than many of you wish to acknowledge. She’s starting to look like Harold Stassen…or Richard Pope!
The “piling corpses” and “facist America” rhetoric is hyperbole of a desparate sort. Reminds me of the days in the 60’s when the SDS’ers and Weatherman-types spelled it “Amerika.” They talked and exploded themselves out of the debate, and a lot of the mouth-foaming at HA does the same thing. Many thoughtful Democrats are embarrassed by it.
Bush lied? Prove it…Show me proof positive an instance where he said something that he absolutely knew was false. Give me evidence up to a courtroom standard…
Bush made mistakes…I agree…Bush believed something that turned out not to be true…I agree…Bush is stubborn…I agree (so was Lincoln during the Civil War…Read Jay Winik’s wonderful book, “April, 1865: The Month that Saved America,” which examines Lincoln’s intransigence in the face of negative public opinion and political pressure)…
But Bush lied? Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt…or at least with a preponderance of the evidence.
Blaming Dan Rather’s woes on Bush is paranoia of the worst sort. But…I suppose paranoia is better than no noia at all. From what I’ve heard on TV from commentators of all stripes is that the prevailing opinion on DR is that, “He’s lost it!”
Dan Rather is fast becoming the media’s answer to Richard Pope.
SJ…please keyboard with gloves, not mittens…My aspirin bill is shooting through the roof!
My friends on the left need to remember that politics isn’t a linear proposition. The pendulum swings to an exteme, but then it swings back the other way.
I’ll ask you to consider…not necessarily agree, but just consider…whether the MoveOn ad may not represent the apex of your POV and the nadir of Dubya’s…The more you folks go politically postal, the more friends you lose and the more your friends criticize you.
Witness Sunday’s withering editorial in The Seattle Times, which called MoveOn’s tactics – YOUR tactics – stupid! Read it and weep at http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....e=20070923
Oops…Look at the time! My son, the ever popular, perceptive, and very patriotic soldier-journalist son, the staff sergeant, is home for a week, and I have to go meet him. We will plot the destruction of all things left, and he will give me the latest inside scoop on what’s really happening in the war.
Wouldn’t you all like to be a fly on the wall of THAT conversation?
Again…SJ’s point about Burma is a serious one, and needs to be seriously addressed.
The Piper
Piper Scott,
‘Why Darcy Burner isn’t “mainstream.”’
Oh…please…spare us from your drivel….
“She’s supported by netroots who, themselves, aren’t mainstream.”
That is a logical fallacy. The “netroots” are a tiny fraction of all supporters. All politicians have supporters that are to the right or the left of their positions, but that does not define whether or not they are mainstream.
Her POV on the Patriot Act doesn’t reflect or respect concerns Americans have for national security and the real threat of future terrorist attacks.”
WRONG! The “patriot act” is not a “mainstream” piece of legislation. It was hastily enacted in the wake of 9/11 and seriously overstepped the Constitution. It is a civil liberty disaster in expanding government ability to tap phones, search email and other electronic communications, and gain access to fiscal, medical, and library records. But either way, being for or against the “Patriot act” does not qualify someone as outside the mainstream. There are many Americans who fall into each camp.
“Her position on taxes is too far left. The top 50% of income earners pay some 96%+ in all taxes, with the top 5% paying over half of all taxes paid…”
Nope…that doesn’t qualify her as outside the mainstream. A slight majority of Americans fall in line with Darcy’s position on taxes. A slim majority disagree with her. Neither position can be considered outside the mainstream.
Apparently, you don’t understand the definition of the word “mainstream.”
(Helpful hint: both Rock and Roll and Country Music are mainstream forms of music, even if less than 50% of people identify either as their favorite form of music. Bagpipes? Not really mainstream.)