Daily Kos

View Story | 143 comments

  •  To those people... (4.00 / 2)

    ...winning wars is all that counts. They don't care about rights, about values, about ideals, about justice, about equality - all they want to do is win wars. It's so absurd as to be childishly ridiculous, and even scarier that these people wield power and influence.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
    Neither is California High Speed Rail

    by eugene on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 10:58:45 AM PDT

    •  what are you gay or something? (none / 0)

      winning is everything.

      Don't subscribe to your most sarcastic news source.

      by therightlies on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 11:02:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  bring it on... (4.00 / 2)

        by tws on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 01:42:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bingo (none / 0)

        Winning is everything.

        Think about that. These people, top to bottom, are losers. They cannot compete to achieve, they cannot innovate to achieve, so they win at anything they can in any way they can.

        To them the smallest win counteracts the largest defeat. All their lives they have escaoed outright failure because there has always been someone with enough clout to pull their nuts from the fire.

        But all they saw was that, in the end, they WON.

        Now they are in a place where there is nobody with enough power to save their terminally stupid asses and they keep playing the same games with the same idiotic attitude, always looking for the WIN!

        They attacked Iraq because it was a "target rich environment", in other words, they could have lots of wins.

        They though Schiavo would be a WIN, so they broke every speed record to get there.

        These people are pathological gamblers; their need to win can never be satisfied and, because of their pathology, they have no way of assessing risk or building and carrying out a strategy.

        But to them it doesn't matter. For the addicted gambler, the $100 WIN!!! outweighs the million dollar loss.

        They ignore the losses and go to ever greater extremes in search of a win, any win, at any value, for any reason. Only the win matters.

        For most of us, fear of loss keeps us relatively sane. I feel more damage from the $100 loss than the euphoria I get from the $1,000 win, so I keep my risks in bounds and I live a relaitvely safe life.

        These people are wired the other way round, and this is what happens when such people get their hands on the levers of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. And they will destroy it before they acknowledge even a single loss, let alone their responsibility for it.

        The Number of the Beast 78-22

        by Deep Dark on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 01:43:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Get a load of this (none / 0)

      Right-wing Detroit News political blogger J.D. Andary on war with Iran:

      What a great way to start the New Year.

      Sending a carry-out of Babba-Ghanooge Bunker Buster to IslamoFascism's ATM would be neat.

      Does Codepink deliver?

      Can't let Israel have all the fun.

      That's one blog entry that truly speaks for itself.

      Replete with "misstatements" and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions.--Carl Bernstein on HRC's record.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 11:03:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong. (4.00 / 6)

      Most of them only care about GOP dominance. These same people attacked Clinton for Bosnia/Kosovo. The fact that he actually won that war upsets them to no end.

      by Mike S on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 11:03:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  it be ok (4.00 / 4)

      except they haven't won any wars.

      The world will end not with a bang, but with a "Do'oh!"
      "America is a free speech zone."

      by Love and Death on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 11:04:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Their heart could be in the right place (none / 0)

        Even if I gave them benefit of doubt and actually assumed that they are doing all this for our safety, I just have to look at the numbers spent on creating Homeland Security and then look at FEMA.

        The Right is all blow hards/racists.

        Where is bin Laden? Did they get him?
        Where is Zarqawi? If the progress in Iraq is so good, why isn't he being turned in?

        I don't view war as totally bad. Just that I don't trust the Right to do anything..well..right.

        by araina on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 11:18:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All blow hards/racists? (none / 1)

          Wow.  Just... wow.

          Regardless, there is no cowardice in either party.  The GOP is currently tasked with protecting the American People.  Their hearts are indeed in the right place.

          As for the erosion of Liberty, that can be easily explained.  Very, very few governments throughout history have ever given up power willingly.  Think about it - would you support additional obstacles in the execution of your job?  Of course not.  It is generally for others to keep your methods in check.  Look to the legislature.

          As for Patrick Henry, I don't think most of you would have liked him.  "Give me liberty or give me death".  Very noble.  He would have fought valiantly against the strong federal government that has developed after the Civil War.  He wanted strong local government that pays tribute to a small federal government that serves only for national defence, to resolve disputes between the states, and to protect the most basic of citizen rights.  Everything else was to be left to the states.  Federal social programs, institutions like FEMA, etc. would NEVER have existed if it were up to him.  Government would be small, very small - run by unpaid volunteer politicians.  Not something I suspect most of you would approve of.

          by Southern Conservative on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 07:23:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes.."all" (none / 0)

            And it's not really contrary to reality as you are making it appear.

            Who in their right minds can say that Bush has been protecting America by going into Iraq? Or that his ignorance of the border situation is helping American security? Blow hard Republicans.

            Who consistently espouse a policy of unilateral foriegn military intervention at the cost of men and material? Blow hard Republicans.

            Who is consistently circumventing laws? Watergate? Contragate? NSA spying? And then saying "it's not illegal if the President does it" (only Republican Presidents please)? Blow hard Republicans.

            Who is consistently anti-minority? Racist Southern Republicans. Johnson knew Democrats had lost the South after signing the Civil Rights Act.

            Despite everything corrupted and illegal that they do, who consistently dares to lecture others? Blow hard Republicans. IOKIYAR.

            by araina on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 03:45:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Piece of work... (none / 0)

              To think that all republicans are racists is the dumbest, most unfounded statement I've ever read on this board.  

              Not to mention, making assumptions about people you have never met based on what category they are in, is PREJUDICE.  So congratulations on illustrating your bigotry.

              by Southern Conservative on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:23:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Winning? (4.00 / 2)

      Bullshit. Their goal right now is choas and profit.

      They don't care about winning anything if it comes without profit and control/bases for America in the Middleast.

      Period.

      U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1999 it was 1:475.

      by Lode Runner on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 12:07:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Winning has NOTHING to do with it (none / 0)

      Its the state of being in a war that compels them. If their war ever is finished, they will be as well. Look at what they've been able to pull on basis of 9/11. It is 1984 come to life.

      The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now

      by sizzzzlerz on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 12:09:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bill Maher once said... (none / 1)

      ...I think it was in his I'm Swiss comedy show that he did early last year, that conservatives and Republicans are such sentimentalists--that they love the supposed "glory" of war and the patriotism that they've so falsely affixed to this one.

      As Bill Maher also said, they're really into having a lot of sunshine blown up their collective asses. Like little children, it assuages their frustration with human complexity and, well, just makes them feel better about their pathetic little selves. Oy.

      --- BE the movement. Obama for President. ---

      by boofdah on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 05:43:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sentimentality (none / 1)

        It's always at the basis of rightist appeals. Then they work themselves into a frenzy over the sadness/injustice/wrongness of it, and then commit crimes all for the greater good of their sentiments.

        Sad for them, a disaster for us.

        Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

        by Jim P on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:15:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good/helpful posts (both of you!) (none / 1)

          I've been thinking about the components of bad art. Sentimentality really can't be beat. But why IS sentimentality so awful in art? Why, when we notice it, do we notice it with contempt sometimes combined with nausea? I mean, it seems to me those who notice it at all don't usually notice it with mere indifference. We react strongly. Why is that?

          Perhaps obviously, because sentimentality lies about pain. It tries to pull the wool over our eyes about it--it wants to deny reality in order to keep some generally weak-kneed sideliners comfortable. On the other hand if you're NOT completely comfortable with cooking the books--if you're still possessed of a shred of conscience (if you're still remotely human)--then victim or villian, it seems to me lies would always be more hurtful than truth, don't you suppose? If you wanted to induce mental suffering in a murderer, mightn't you tell him a sickeningly sweet, totally fraudulent, happy-ending story of his victim's life over and over again?

          Anyway, I realize I'm off topic (or approaching the topic obliquely) but let me lay another idea on you: Personal mortality is alleged to be the single most painful reckoning for humankind; particularly, some say, for those who haven't knowingly come within harm's way. Could it be that's why so many people who haven't experienced combat tend to sentimentalize about it so much? What then explains why a significant number of veterans get caught up in the lies we tell each other (to assuage guilt or whatever) about war? Is it really because the truth is too painful to bear? If that's the case (and it would seem so) it shoots my other theory (art and truth above) all to hell.

          I still say sentimentality can't be beat as enemy #1 of truth (and therefore art, as sophomoric as it sounds). One way to make sure sentimentality never gives you too much trouble is to stay as ignorant as possible--or to put it the other way, the more accurate information you have, the harder the koolaide goes down.

          (Sorry. Out of left field. Thanks for reading. :)

          God bless our tinfoil hearts.

          by aitchdee on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 12:25:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah! Deny reality... (none / 1)

            I found what you wrote all very interesting, and though not "political" perhaps uber-poliical.

            The way I look at it, is an awful lot of human behavior can be understood by 2 phenomena, which acount for much in art, politics, and human interaction:

            One, people need attention. It's been shown that infants that are given full attention through the first months tend to grow up healthier, bigger, smarter, and better able to keep their internal balance in later years, so attention is like a food for the soul in a hugely literal sense. (Same holds true for plants and animals.) Bad art is driven by the need to get attention and little else, whereas good art might have that component, but also adds the urge to uncover and/or share something about reality.

            Two, sentimentality is often a self-engineered distraction from the dictates of Conscience. You don't have to look at reality, which can be a painful thing especially when it comes to seeing our own infantile preoccupations.  When you are in the grips of emotion about one or another BIG theme (think Wagner), besides the fact that there's a payoff with sentimentality of that cloying sweet feeling you get, it's simply too much to review one's own behavior. It's a falsification of emotion, overlaid with a "logical" rationale.

            It isn't so much that the truth is too hard to bear, it's that people get unwilling to pay the price for the truth. Example from my life: a Christian friend, who is good to every person she meets, supports Bush and doesn't want to even contemplate his corruption, because the price is she'd have to feel afraid if he really isn't protecting her. So she goes all sentimental when his name is brought up.

            So I think you are onto something actually very important, and continued inquiry into the areas you are looking into will be fruitful for you. Just my 2 cents.

            Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

            by Jim P on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 06:55:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Sentimentality is manipulative... (none / 1)

            and often fraudulent.  And most people, when they find that is lying to them in order to defraud them, react badly to it.  Thus the disdain we feel for bad art.

            For the military, there's a built-in reason for manipulation and fraud.  Military recruits sign away many of their rights -- including the right to preserve their lives.  Throughout history soldiers have stood in lines and gotten themselves slaughtered for little or no personal gain.  Sentimentality is extremely useful in that it convinces soldiers that they want to become cannon fodder.

            I'm not dating Edwards anymore, but I still call out his name when I vote.

            by sagra on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 09:41:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

View Story | 143 comments