Skip to main content

View Diary: Democrats for Life (without Contraception) Boot Tim Ryan (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ryan's an HONEST pro-lifer (9+ / 0-)

     He doesn't believe the fetus loses all rights the instant it's born.

     Oh, and he opposed the Iraq war, too. War is nothing but rationalized mass murder. True pro-lifers oppose it.

     That's why they kicked him out. He exposes the so-called "pro-lifers" hypocrisy.

    "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

    by Buzzer on Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 04:07:31 PM PDT

    •  Is there a cliche of the day award or something? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neon Mama, JeffW, dotalbon

      Cause I think we've found our winner-

      War is nothing but rationalized mass murder.

      •  Some things are cliches because they are true (0+ / 0-)
        •  That isn't one of them (0+ / 0-)
          •  Enlighten us, then. (0+ / 0-)

            What is war?

            •  That's like asking 'What is blue?' (0+ / 0-)

              Some wars are just some are not. Some wars are simply unavoidable. Killing in self defense or defense of ideals is not murder.

              People like to throw around cliches about how war is never the answer but it's just posturing. When push comes to shove, when it's your* life directly threatened, everyone is a hawk.

              War is always wrong is a nice ideology and all, but those of us in the reality based world accept that it is sometimes necessary and occasionally even righteous.

              *generic your

              •  Give us examples. (0+ / 0-)

                Really, give us an example of a political crisis that was best handled by going to war.

                I'd agree that sometimes you have no choice to go to war -- but that's only because someone (usually you) have so royally fucked up you've left yourself no choice.

                It's always a terribly waste of life and resources. It may seem to be sophisticated to attack the cliche -- but really, it's a naive sophistication like wearing black lipstick and eyeliner.

                •  yeah... (0+ / 0-)

                  Defending a meritless oversimplification smacks of sophistication.  

                  I think you've done a brilliant job of describing those on your side of the debate though. It is uncanny though how black lipstick and eyeliner, basement dwelling and cliche spouting posers who just want attention seem to be coming off the assembly line these day.

                  •  So you gots no examples? (0+ / 0-)

                    You are positing the position that sometimes a series of well-thought out, correct policy lead to a morally-correct war.

                    I say no. All you have to do is give me an example, instead of putting on this faux sophistication.

                    •  I am posting that (0+ / 0-)

                      sometimes was is necessary and on occasion even righteous.

                      This isn't faux anything, I just have no patience for people who throw cliches at things to misrepresent and over-simplify complex issues. It is dishonest, offensive, and displays just how intellectually bankrupt they and their ideology is.

                      You want a righteous war? From who's perspective exactly? Anyone who has ever been invaded or truly threatened is fighting a righteous war. The U.S. in WW2 and Afghanistan.

                      You are defending an indefensible position, not all war is simply rationalized mass murder. If you are opposed to war entered into lightly, I tend to agree with you. That idiotic cliche however, is nothing but merit-less pseudo-intellectual posturing most commonly found among basement dwelling teenagers crying out for attention.

                      •  The US wasn't invaded in WWII. (0+ / 0-)

                        And Afghanistan didn't invade the US either.

                        At best, you can say that it was reasonable to conclude in WWII that the Japanese intended to invade the US (but not the Germans, which we spent most of our budget on).

                        The Afghanis were clearly not planning to invade the US. At best, it was righteous retribution -- but not symmetrical, symmetry would have simply been blowing up a few building in Kabul.

                        And in both cases, war was the result of some serious fuck-ups on both sides -- it was, at best, inevitable once both sides decided to commit some serious stupidities and crimes.

                        In essence, unnecessary and unrighteous; the righteous acts would have been attempts to properly constitute the international order in the preceding decades rather than (all sides) stealing like pigs until the only choice left was to kill each other in an orgy of blood.

                        Gandhi is not a basement dwelling teenager. You may disagree with his analysis (I do) -- but to think you can reduce the "War is useless" position to naiviete is in itself naiviete.

                        •  I happen to consider liberating (0+ / 0-)

                          Europe, saving the Jews and stopping Germany in their quest for domination a righteous reason.

                          We aren't at war with the Afghans, we are at war with the Taliban and Al Quaeda. Again, righteous.

                          Your attempts to preach inter-generational guilt to support an indefensible position are...disingenuous...to put it charitably.

                          Please look up the word niave, it doesn't mean what you seem to thing it means.

                          •  Oh, quite right. (0+ / 0-)

                            The US entered WWII to save the Jews -- quite definitely. That wasn't a desirable side effect, but the central issue in the FDR Whitehouse. We fought the Japanese to try to undermine the German war effort so they wouldn't kill the Jews. It was just bad luck that the US didn't actually attempt to shutdown the well-known death camps -- or even bomb the rail lines.

                            And we also were trying to stop the global spread of fascism -- even though many folks in the US government where quite comfortable with fascism and even FDR didn't find it quite repulsive (read up on his initial draft of his inauguration speech). Now, we didn't fight German global domination to impose our own global domination, but primarily for moral reasons.

                            Yes, yes, very definitely. That's what they teach in high-school.

                            So, are you a liar or a fool? Someone who swallows kindergarten level propaganda, or a propagandist?

                            The Soviets also said they fought WWII to save the world from those evil totalitarians. But I guess they're liars, while we're pure like the driven snow.

                            And the Germans said they invaded the Sudetenland on a humanitarian mission to liberate the oppressed Teutonophones from their Czech masters -- but we know that they're liars.

                            Do you also believe we put Indians on reservations to "educate" them? That we destroyed the South to free the slaves? That babies come from cabbage patches?

    •  "Pro-lifers" shoot selves in foot (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean, sam storm, dotalbon

      They're going to marginalize themselves at this rate.  (I hope, anyway.)

      •  People who don't live in the real world (0+ / 0-)

        generaly end up shooting themselves in the foot by looking stupid. If they aren't against reducing abortions they must be for increasing abortions right?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site