Skip to main content

View Diary: Antiwar, what is it good for? (268 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I get all that (6+ / 0-)

    but I disagree with this:

    I think what Carter meant (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) was "pro-Paul" in the sense of embracing his foreign policy.
    In whatever sense it was meant it is still wrong.  The term "pro-Paul" is what I find offensive.  No one here is "pro-Paul" in any way, with the exception of the occasional troll and they're usually dispatched pretty quickly.  Agreeing with where Paul stands on certain specific issues is in no way an endorsement of why Paul is on the same side of the issue.  Further, being on the same side of an issue as Paul is not "embracing his foreign policy."  There is no "embracing" of anything to do with Ron Paul, which is another charged, inflammatory and false accusation.  There is agreement on certain specific issues but certainly not all of the issues that comprise Paul's "foreign policy," "policy" implying a set of issues.

    My problem is that "pro-Paul" is an epithet that is hurled at anyone that has the temerity to say that Paul is on the right side of an issue and even if they take great pains to make it clear that how he gets there makes him unsupportable.  And so I really don't care in what sense someone means it, there is no sense in which it is true and it is therefore insulting.  It's demagoguery at its worst.

    That's why I am asking - as nicely as I can - that it not be used to insult people like the diarist.  It is charged, it is inflammatory and it is offensive because there is no truth in it.

    Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

    by democracy inaction on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 07:36:53 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Understood (0+ / 0-)

      I can certainly respect that. I don't believe I've ever used the term, but I can see how it might be offensive.

      The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places ~Ernest Hemingway
      Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle ~ Anonymous

      by SwedishJewfish on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 07:49:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  read the sentence (0+ / 0-)
      the people writing pro-Paul stuff from the left use it to bash the president and claim it's the only way they can bring it up.
      if you aren't writing pro-Paul stuff you shouldn't be offended. Too many people think Paul is taking a progressive stance about the war. He isn't, and a front page diary on the matter explains why better than I can. The sad thing is many of those who write pro-Paul stuff don't understand the vast difference between a progressive stance against the war and the isolationist bullshit of Ron Paul.

      America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

      by cacamp on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 10:24:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then who is it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc, lotlizard

        that you're complaining about?  Who here is writing "pro-Paul stuff from the left" and then using it to "bash" the president?

        The answer is "no one" but that didn't stop you from making that charge and it hasn't stopped others from making that charge specifically against David Minzer and others here.  In other words, your "I wasn't talking about anyone here" claim doesn't have the ring of truth.  It's pretty clear to me what you're insinuating.

        Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

        by democracy inaction on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 10:36:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  wrong again (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou

          I meant quite a few people here who think Paul is on the progressive side about the war and drugs. I have no idea if you're one of those ot not, if not relax, if so you're wrong. That's why so many people, including yesterdays front page, have written explaining why it isn't true. It's a long way from "no one".

          btw, I tipped and recced this diary and specifically thanked David for his non-use of Paul as a touch point.

          America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

          by cacamp on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 11:37:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Be specific (0+ / 0-)

            Who are you talking about?  Tell us so we can determine ourselves whether or not they actually are "pro-Paul" as you claim, I'm not going to take your word for it.  If you can't be specific, then don't make a BS claim like that.

            You say you've seen "pro-Paul" writing here, I have not, with the exception of trolls that get dispatched quickly.  What have I missed?  Whose diaries am I not reading?  Who are these phantom "pro-Paul" writers here?

            The reason that you can't get specific is that if you do, your BS claim will fall apart.  As long as you're being vague, you can say whatever you want.

            "Quite a few..."  Who then?  Name a few.

            Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

            by democracy inaction on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:56:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  go back and read the fifty diaries explaining it (0+ / 0-)

              begin with the FP article Sunday and then read Mizners diary on the subject and any of the other diaries, if you can read you can't miss them.

              America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

              by cacamp on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 04:52:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site