Skip to main content

View Diary: John Kerry: We Can Bomb Regardless of What Congress Does (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay, I got you. Let me boil it down: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frostbite, 3rdOption, gerrilea

    If the current administration is operating in the up-and-up and there are indeed no behind-the-scenes neocon influences and agendas, then you are totally correct.

    If on the other hand we are being lied to, then what Clark reported in 2007 has relevance.

    About that?

    •  Given Clark's 2007 speech (21+ / 0-)

      Do you think he'd be saying what he is about Syria if he believed he was at risk of being lied to? Do you think he's in a better position than you to assess the relevance of his own 2007 speech to contemporary events?

      •  That ca be judged against the backdrop of the (7+ / 0-)

        nation having been lied multiple times on very serious issues that had had catastrophic results.

        I'm looking at all the eight minutes of what he reported in 2007 and taking the information into consideration as I evaluate the situation.

      •  Clark is yet another lemming who has been swayed (13+ / 0-)

        ... by the all-powerful propaganda machine of the media monopolies, the MIC and the corporate cartels with their top secret plan for world domination.

        Kind of reminds me of the ultra-secret "Gay Agenda" which my gay business partner inadvertently left on the table in the conference room one day.

        Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

        by Bob Johnson on Sat Sep 07, 2013 at 03:00:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hi Bob! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador, emal, GoGoGoEverton

          Full respect, but I think it might be more effective to respond to Ray's arguments by debating them on the merits, rather than just mocking them. Otherwise, you're just feeding another flame war.

          •  Why? (12+ / 0-)

            This is how he responds to factual arguments:

            "Logical fallacy."

            End of discussion.

            I suggest you take a look at his last dozen or so diaries here to see what he does with those who present supported arguments that counter his positions.

            He's been wrong with every prediction he's made to date. I suspect that pattern will continue.

            Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

            by Bob Johnson on Sat Sep 07, 2013 at 03:12:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hi Bob! (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Pensador, emal, Kentucky Kid, Sylv

              I have been reading Ray's diaries for awhile, and do find some aspects of his narrative style frustrating. I've also watched a lot of unproductive flamewars in his diaries, that I don't feel serve much productive purpose.

              If you scroll down a bit in the comments, you'll see that I proposed an alternative interpretation to that of Ray's diary. His response was "Point well taken. That's a possibility. However I disagree with that interpretation.

              But again, I think it is totally valid and plausible."

              I consider that a pretty reasonable response.

              •  Congratulations. (5+ / 0-)

                Not really much of a discussion, is it?

                Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

                by Bob Johnson on Sat Sep 07, 2013 at 03:23:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I never claimed it was much of a discussion (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador, lostinamerica, twigg

                  But it does show an alternative to your claim, "This is how he responds to factual arguments: "Logical fallacy." End of discussion.".

                  •  Like I wrote... (0+ / 0-)

                    Congratulations.

                    Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

                    by Bob Johnson on Sat Sep 07, 2013 at 03:38:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I have to tell you, erratic (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    indubitably, Timaeus, Eyesbright

                    I do wholly admire your persistence.

                    However, and however charitable you are feeling, because good people give the benefit of the doubt, I am going to make the following observation:

                    In all of the Diaries of Ray's that I have read, and there have been plenty, I have yet to see him answer a single cogent point put to him. If he doesn't complain about being bullied by the "conspiratorial cabal" here on Daily Kos, he simply dismisses the points raised without a substantive reply.

                    The other comments he makes are to egg on any supportive comments.

                    Bob has been fed up of him for a while now, as has Adam B and Armando. They are not simply being dismissive, even above see Adam attempt to engage in debate, but it isn't happening.

                    If you make any attempt to dismiss the extraordinary claims of a "grand conspiracy", as represented very well by this Diary, you are a bully, or the Rec Police, or something, when actually, the frickin' Diary is Hide Rateable on its merits.

                    He has been making these claims for so long we have got used to them, but evidence? Nope, not so much.

                    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                    Who is twigg?

                    by twigg on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 12:02:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Twigg that's a mischaracterization and again a (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      churchylafemme

                      personal attack designed to malign my character.

                      The argument you are presenting is outright dishonest, and no matter how many times you or Bob keep repeating these baseless and relentless attacks you are both not only going to fail, you are going to damage your own reputation because everybody can plainly see what you're doing.

                      I challenge you right here in front of everybody to proof your assertion.

                      Instead of launching these blanket personal attacks, why don't you point out what exactly in this diary you find objectionable.

                      And this doesn't need to be an infinite loop of back-and-forth posts.

                      If you are being intellectually-honest, read the diary (is not that long) and point out exactly what you find objectionable and why you think "the frickin' Diary is Hide Rateable."

                      Keep in mind that I've researched points of views and arguments by very well respected people (journalists, analysts, intellectuals, academics, former intelligence professionals, former generals) that shared these views.

                      Here in this thread I asked another person who also engaged in an ad hominem attack and I calmly replied in the same way I'm doing with you now.... Present a cogent argument, critique, and I will carefully respond, respectfully point by point.

                      Right her you made a very serious accusation against me; one that has no basis in reality.

                      Again, if you are arguing from an intellectually-honest perspective, instead of lobbing these types of insults, try presenting a cogent counter-argument and see how I reply.

                      Try it.

                    •  Hi Twigg! (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      twigg, Sylv, Eyesbright, poco

                      I'm pretty sure that I'm not giving Ray the benefit of the doubt. I disagree with many of his interpretations, and find some of his techniques to be very problematic.

                      I definitely sympathize with some of those who react strongly, but in my opinion, the use of mockery and insults hasn't had much constructive effect, beyond supporting what I perceive to be Ray's narrative of victimization.

                      I certainly don't expect to change Ray's mind at this point, but I don't feel that feeding the flame wars has been very productive, and am practising an alternative form of engagement - civil discussion.

                      •  I commend you for it (7+ / 0-)

                        I tried that too, for quite a while.

                        I may consider trying "ignoring" now.

                        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                        Who is twigg?

                        by twigg on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 08:19:39 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Erratic, you've alluded to me being unreasonable (0+ / 0-)

                        a few times already, but thus far I think you and I have been communicating in a respectful way, except your refrain about my supposed unwarranted feeling of victimization.

                        Again, any honest arbiter could determine that I don't frequent Twiggs diaries, or Bob Johnson or the few other people who post 500+ comments in my diaries...

                        You can test your theory... Visit any of my upcoming diaries, and if you happen to disagree strongly with any of my points, feel free to attack the argument, strong, with everything you have (intellectually), and I you will always see that I'm going to engage in a respectful manner.

                        However, if the first thing you post as a counter-argument is an allusion to my mental acuity, a personal insult, or a logical fallacy, likewise I promise I'll make note of it, and then I'll proceed to the argument--just like I did here.

                        •  Hi Ray, agreed, we are communicating (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ray Pensador, Eyesbright, poco

                          respectfully. From my perspective, it's not relevant whether or not you frequent or post in other people's diaries. When you post a DK diary, you will get responses from DK members. While I personally don't feel that antagonistic or provocative comments/responses are constructive, I understand why some commenters react strongly to what they perceive to be conspiracy theories. I share with them the opinion that conspiracy theories are neither appropriate nor constructive for the DK community.

                          As to "what I perceive to be Ray's narrative of victimization", it's very strange to me that you apparently haven't considered the possibility that various individuals respond strongly to your diaries, because they feel strongly that conspiracy theory diaries aren't appropriate here. I feel that that's a very valid critique of your diaries, even though it may not always be communicated in civil ways.

                          •  This is the type of debate I enjoy. Think of (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            erratic, serendipityisabitch

                            something... You and a few others keep repeating this accusation about me peddling conspiracy theories.  Now, since we seem to be communicating in a respectful way, I'm going to ask you to read the definition of CT according to the site guidelines:

                            Conspiracy theories

                            Extraordinary claims require evidence. If you don't have evidence, don't make the claim. So such things as "Bush was behind (or let happen) 9-11 attacks", or "the Mossad executed the London Tube bombings", or "Diebold stole the 2004 elections" are not allowed. Linking to discredited conspiracy sites isn't "providing evidence". If you want to trade in unsubstantiated craziness, you are in luck! The internet has about a million resources for you. Daily Kos just isn't one of them.

                            First, there is nothing in my writing that remotely approaches that definition.  The theme in my writing is along the lines of calling attention to economic actors who act out of a confluence of interests, like ALEC, and how media conglomeration distorts the media narrative.  I'm also very interested/focused on understanding and unearthing issues related to corruption and influence-peddling... These issues usually define the interests of progressives.

                            Now, you will notice that the few people who keep lobbing this CT accusation many times also mention with derision that my diaries keep hitting the rec list; and they actually criticize people who recommend them.

                            Do you honestly think that if I was a person writing crazy CT that people would keep recommending my diaries and putting them on the rec list on a regular basis?

                            To tell you the truth, I'm not too focused on the rec list.  I write with passion and interest, and if the diary is well-received and it hits the rec list, then that's nice, but I'm not really focused on it.

                            Also, sometimes I see diaries hit the rec list for trivial reasons (IMO), so although I think the rec list overall is a pretty good metric for content quality, is not perfect.

                            I really ask you to think about this carefully, hoping that you are indeed a dispassionate, unbiased and objective.

                          •  Sure thing, Ray! (4+ / 0-)

                            Although it's unfortunate that we're so far over on the right margin. Honestly, I consider this to be a conspiracy theory:

                            I've been arguing for quite some time that the decision to launch an illegal war of aggression against Syria has been made long ago, and that what we are witnessing right now is some sort of Kabuki Theater.  That this situation is just a continuation of the neocons dream, "all of whom firmly believed that the United States, with its staggering military advantage and lack of enemies, now had an unparalleled opportunity to control and reorganize the planet."

                            I've argued that what we are witnessing is part of a larger plan that includes provoking a war with Iran as well; that there are hidden geopolitical reasons this thing is going to happen, and that we the people are not privy of those reasons.

                            The number of recs don't play a factor, from my perspective. You use the term "confluence" in your comment, suggesting that independent actions by individuals and entities (including powerful ones) could align so as to provide a cumulative pressure to take a certain action. I'm entirely onboard with you for that.

                            But to my memory, this is the first time you've suggested the possibility of a confluence of interests/actions, rather than collusion/conspiracy, where irresistibly powerful individuals/entities work together toward a hidden goal ("...this thing has been preordained, a policy decision that has already been made--long ago.").

                            In this particular diary, the most generous interpretation would be that Obama is either a stooge or a puppet, ignorant of the fact that the fix is already in, and his actions are subsumed within a neocon plan for war with Syria and Iran. In a less generous interpretation, he's a willing participant.

                            That is by my definition a conspiracy theory. I fully agree that there are individuals and entities that would like the US to go to war with Syria and Iran, and that there is some collaboration between those individuals and entities. I also know that there are some individuals and entities that don't want to do so, and are collaborating.

                            But as soon as you claim or imply collusion at such a scale that a certain outcome is inevitable, or almost inevitable, dismissing effective agency by non-participants in said collusion ("...this thing has been preordained, a policy decision that has already been made--long ago."), without convincing evidence, I consider that a conspiracy theory.

                          •  Here's my answer: Read this front-page diary: (0+ / 0-)

                            We must go to war. Just not in Syria

                            There are only two winners if this action is taken. It is not Syria. It is not the Syrian rebels. It is definitely not America. The only winners are the military industrial complex and a corporatocracy dependent on cheap oil.

                            One can see the influence of the both as the same discredited characters that led the debacle of the last decade are being recycled, conservatives (e.g., Krystol, Rumsfeld, Senor) providing wisdom and backing for a president that was convinced to go to war by likely military industrial complex and corporatist insiders. They assume an uninformed America will either not know who they are or know that they were responsible for pilfering of America’s treasure and the deaths and maiming of thousands of our young soldiers.

                            America must go to war alright. America must go to war with those who are pushing war with Syria. America must go to war with those that profit from war. America must go to war with those selling guns and allowing the indiscriminate sale of guns to terrorists and criminals both abroad and domestically.

                          •  I'm sorry Ray, but that's not an answer (6+ / 0-)

                            to my comment.

                          •  It's basically the theme of my diaries. (0+ / 0-)

                            Regarding the MIC, the influence of the neocons, the war profiteering.

                            That's what I write about.

                          •  I am aware of the theme of your diaries. (8+ / 0-)

                            I feel that you just walked away from your commitment to respectful debate.

                            Let's pick this up another time.

                          •  Unfortunately, the answer is "yes" (9+ / 0-)

                            Rat wrote:

                            Do you honestly think that if I was a person writing crazy CT that people would keep recommending my diaries and putting them on the rec list on a regular basis?
                            Unfortunately, yes, I do think that people might do that and here are a couple of examples of why I think that.

                            I just de-friended a relative this morning who posted an Alex Jones/InfoWars piece on FB with the comment, "wake up, America!"  She became highly insulted when I listed his pet conspiracy theories (the moon landing was faked, the government was behind 9-11 and the Oklahoma City bombings).  She's not unintelligent and she's not the only person I know who fits that category and yet somehow gets sucked in to CT.  

                            Snopes.com is widely read for their excellent research and factual reporting on urban myths and CT.  Their site has hundreds (perhaps thousands) listed, along with the research and facts.  If I had $10 for every time I've sent a snopes.com link to someone who'd posted a wild story (and should have known better), I could take all the commenters on this diary out to dinner tonight.

                            My point is, simply, that an amazing number of people buy in to conspiracy theories for various reasons and not all of those people are stupid.  I've come to the conclusion that most of it is confirmation bias but that can't explain it all.

                            Note:  I simply answered your question.  I didn't express an opinion about your diaries.

                            It's not a question of whether our founding fathers are rolling in their graves but rather of how many RPM they're clocking.

                            by Eyesbright on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 04:49:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Whoops - that first word should be "Ray" n/t (6+ / 0-)

                            It's not a question of whether our founding fathers are rolling in their graves but rather of how many RPM they're clocking.

                            by Eyesbright on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 04:51:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is a very, very important point (7+ / 0-)

                            about confirmation bias. We could use another good diary on confirmation bias, in truth. We do all suffer from it all the time. That's inarguable. But to what degree we attempt to critically think through an issue, to consider the sources own biases, and to then synthesize our own, informed perspective is what helps combat confirmation bias in general. That allows for a wide, democratic, and diverse set of views grounded both in ideology and also in reason.

                            I think if these precautions have been taken by any one individual, then they are always allowed a little time for a tinfoil hat to put on now and then, especially if all of the sources seem slanted or unreliable or, in some cases, there may not be that many (here, I have to think of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster when TEPCO was, and still is, and is still being dinged for, keeping information from the public; another case of this might be with the BP Oil Spill). But at the same time, one need always know that one IS wearing a tinfoil hat at certain moments in that one need see that their belief is at the level of belief still and not "what is absolutely true."

                            Source assessment and confirmation bias are really hard for many people to fully grasp, especially in a world where the media is -- and I don't think this is tinfoil hat territory -- slanted due to being corporate owned. Then again, there are some really fine journalists doing amazing work too. It's good to always think about this, and then also, to think about what bias you bring in to a situation -- my example with Syria might be that I'm a pacifist, so I will tend to favor sources that confirm my tendency to want to not intervene there. But the thing is, I know this is my bias and what I'm looking for, so I try to deal with that head-on and read through it to formulate a more objective opinion. I still conclude that we don't need to intervene, but this is after wrangling with my own personal confirmation biases! I love your comment and wish it wasn't all the way to the right. It's too good for that.

                            Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                            by mahakali overdrive on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 05:03:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Let me take this on from a very different (8+ / 0-)

                            viewpoint. Let us assume that your conclusions as to the media/government/MIC/industrial collusion are correct, and that they are individually and collectively engaged in a propaganda campaign against the American people.

                            One of the pertinent aspects of a good propaganda campaign, for as long as we have been following them, is destruction of the morale of the people being campaigned against. One of the more usual ways of doing this is to attempt to convince the target audience that the objectives of the campaign have already been achieved, that the opponent is bound to succeed, and that there is no legitimate action that can be taken against it.

                            Your diaries posit a seemingly unbeatable coalition of power, and always (by your statement to me a day or two ago) assume the worst case scenario in which their plans work perfectly. If we accept your premises, we've lost already. Should we not, therefor, see you as an agent of this coalition, working to aid in destroying our morale? Your diaries, read in certain ways, could easily support that case.

                            Now, I do not see you in that light. I do, however, point out that once you set up the picture that you have, it is a legitimate presumption, which can neither be confirmed nor discredited by any logic.

                            At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                            by serendipityisabitch on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 05:49:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is very helpful. I'm glad you explained your (2+ / 0-)

                            position, which actually helps me in understanding what I perceive to be a strong opposition to my themes by some.

                            Actually, it also helps me think about it from your point of view.

                            Here's where I'm coming from... I'm not a pessimist.  I'm actually an eternal optimist, regardless of the situation at hand.

                            All throughout history we've seen swings between oppression and more livable condition for the common folk.   It was like that in ancient Rome, in the Middle Ages, the Renascence, etc.

                            Historically, I recognize this... So no matter how bad things get I don't see it as the end of the world; I just see it as a historical boom-and-bust cycles between freedom/democracy and oppression.

                            I have enormous faith in the human spirit, in the capability for people to be moral, honest, and brave in the face of injustice/oppression.

                            That faith is born out my understanding of history when it comes to people struggling against oppression... The arch of history.

                            What motivates my writing, my activism, is the perspective that if you are trying to resolve a problem, cure a disease, that you have to have a very clear understanding of the underlying reasons.

                            I'm sure you are familiar with that.  About needing to know the causes of the disease in order to be able to cure it.

                            Now, for many years now I've concluded that there is something terribly wrong with our system... You are familiar with theme: corporatocracy, war profiteering, and the encroachment of what I believe to be a nascent surveillance/police state acting on behalf of the ruling class.

                            Here's the most important point: If we all want to work together in addressing these ills, is it better to have an inaccurate understanding of the underlying causes, or is it better to have a very clear picture of them?

                            In other words, if you believe that that we still live in a functioning democracy and put all your efforts in the electoral system and after all your hard work, when people get into office things keep getting worst and worst, is it fair to ask others who want to focus on root causes to not speak because what they say may demoralize people?

                            I would never advocate for people to stop voting or getting involved in the electoral process, campaign, walk the walk, reach out, phone banks, etc.  That is very important.

                            But I see that as one side of the coin.  The other side is that we as citizens need to educate ourselves about the true nature of the system, understand it well, understand the sources of corruption, dysfunction, oppression.

                            And then once we understand it, we can get together and figure out how to address those issues as well.

                            I believe we can do it, but we need to be fully cognizant of the underlying causes of the problem.

                            So I advocate for both, remain engaged in politics fully; do not give an inch; fight for every right, every vote, etc.  AND also fight corruption at the root level.

                            I argue that if we don't do that (both approaches), we will continue to lose ground until it is too late.
                             

                          •  One note - the only statement of my position (5+ / 0-)

                            I have given you is that I do not consider you to be an agent of your postulated conspiracy/confluence.

                            The rest was simply an exercise in logic, to show you what some of the potential ramifications of your position might be seen as. Whether your suppositions or your conclusions are valid, I do not know. My bias is toward complex motivations where human beings are concerned, rather than single causes.

                            At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                            by serendipityisabitch on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 07:02:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Maybe is a matter of perception, but I totally (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            serendipityisabitch

                            agree with this:

                            My bias is toward complex motivations where human beings are concerned, rather than single causes.
                            That's why I keep referring to "confluence of interests."

                            Even when I refer to the "ruling elite," or "powerful interests," I don't think that they see themselves as oppressors or tyrants, or anything like that.  In fact, I've interacted with many wealthy people and most of them are the nicest people you can meet.  Although I do believe that there are some that are truly sociopathic, as I've indicated before.

                            The problem I see regarding the "confluence of interests" is that wealthy/privilege people will always have a tendency to acquire more wealth and power.  I think this could happen to any of us...

                            The rule of law, the Constitution, regulations, etc., in a well-functioning democracy is meant to "regulate" the potential destructive/predatory effects of power-run-wild.

                            But once the constitutional safeguard, regulation, and the rule of law are undermined, then the system goes haywire, and wealth and power rapidly transfers to those who have it, destroying the legal and constitutional foundation for a healthy middle class.

                    •  Sigh. In the future, please consider including (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Eyesbright

                      this 2003 joinee in the list of those fed up with Mr. P.

              •  Notice the extreme animosity. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lostinamerica, gerrilea
                •  And notice that it's possible to engage (or not) (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Eyesbright, Catte Nappe, poco, PaDemTerry

                  without escalating or continuing the conflict. 3rd options response to the reasonable comment thread between you and Adam contained a pretty strong element of animosity as well.

                  •  If you were to take a look at my last ten diaries (4+ / 0-)

                    or so you're going to see a relentless and very vitriolic volley of attacks, name-calling and mockery by the same people (8 to 10).  It will jump at you.

                    Either way, even here check out the tone of all my answers and then compare that with the insults and mockery from Bob.  It also jumps at you.

                    •  Hi Ray, I have read some of your recent diaries (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mahakali overdrive, Sylv, PaDemTerry

                      and the comments, and yes, I've seen plenty of attacks, name-calling, and mockery. But not just from a small group of people on one "side". I've seen it from both "sides".

                      I have experienced the same treatment myself, from you as well as others.

                      I do appreciate your work to maintain a reasonable tone in this diary. Carry on!

                      •  Define "some of your recent diaries" (4+ / 0-)

                        Because it makes a difference which ones we're talking about.

                        If you've read the more contentious ones only, the ones that elicited more meta reactions, you're going to see a lot more equivalence in behavior. Maybe.

                        However, what Ray is talking about, I think, precedes the "sockpuppet" diary, and you kinda had to be there following the comment sections or those earlier diaries in real time, as I did for many of them, to see how things transpired.

                        I don't think you were, IIRC.




                        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                        by DeadHead on Sat Sep 07, 2013 at 07:35:03 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Hi Deadhead! (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          mahakali overdrive, PaDemTerry

                          I checked back, and I'd read one of Ray's diaries prior to the sockpuppet diary, and most of them since. But Ray's claim was based on the last ten diaries as illustration.

                          •  Actually (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ray Pensador, churchylafemme

                            It was "If you were to take a look back at my last ten diaries or so..."

                            That seems to indicate a more "off the top of his head" reply.

                            With all due respect, you should read a few more posted prior to the sockpuppet one before attempting to play the part of a fair and balanced arbiter, as you appear to be doing in this thread.




                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Sat Sep 07, 2013 at 08:46:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hi Deadhead! (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sylv, GoGoGoEverton, PaDemTerry

                            I think I've read enough of Ray's diaries to have a pretty clear sense of the dynamics. I'm pretty sure that if I read more, I'd find diaries where Ray proposed large-scale propaganda-based deceptions, poorly supported by questionably relevant documentation.

                            In the comments, I'd expect to find strong reactions from individuals who took offense to what they perceived to be conspiracy theories, followed by free-for-all flame wars, fed by both "sides".

                            I'm certainly not a fair and balanced arbiter, but I was curious about what impact an attempt to engage in a civil manner would have.

          •  This is what 3rdOption was talking about. n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lostinamerica, gerrilea
          •  Good luck with that (4+ / 0-)

            Approach. I tried it in an earlier diary today and got shot down, mocked and insulted very quickly. I stopped as soon as that happened as it was obvious that commenter was not interested in what I had to offer.

            That said, to the outside observer, both of these commenters are commonly found in Ray's diaries and it is obvious from their writings and comments they do not like his work product. Just an observation but For individuals who obviously dislike his work so much they spend a lot of time commenting in his diaries. ...But maybe that's just me.

            Maybe you will have better luck.

            Government of, for, and by the wealthy corporate political ruling class elites. We are the 99%-OWS.

            by emal on Sat Sep 07, 2013 at 06:49:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Hi Bob! (3+ / 0-)

          I don't think your very mild mockery does, in fact, go to the merits of the argument. It's not personal, it's kinda fun and funny and I approve your message!

          If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

          by Bensdad on Sat Sep 07, 2013 at 06:04:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hey Dad of Ben :) (0+ / 0-)

            Does the argument actually have any merit?

            Just wonderin'

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            Who is twigg?

            by twigg on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 12:03:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Meant to say his mockery DOES go.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              twigg

              ...to the merits of the argument.

              BTW, Ben was my dalmatian, who passed away at the age of 14 in 2010. I'll always be his dad, though. Loved that dog.

              If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

              by Bensdad on Sun Sep 08, 2013 at 01:25:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Environment (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site