« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
An Ode To Julian Smith and Free Speech
Half of what I say is meaningless
But I say it just to reach you Julian
Julian, Julian, freedom of speech, calls me
So I sing a song of loons, Julian
Julian, open eyes, snarky smile, calls me
So I sing a song of love, Julian
His posts of angry freedom are shimmering, glimmering
In the sun
Julian, Julian, TPM watch-guard, teach me
So I sing a song of recipes, Julian
When I cannot stop the spam
I can only speak my mind Julian
Julian, waking cut, silent paste, teach me
So I sing a song of truth, Julian
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/profile/Julian%20Smith
(Forgive me, John Lennon, forgive me, please)
Advertisement
Comments (211)
I would just like to add to this by saying that what Julian Smith is fighting against is actually something we should all be fighting against.
What Julian Smith is fighting against, by cutting and pasting very long Loon Facts and Recipes into every post that we all disagree with, is blocking.
I think Julian makes a very good point, to be honest.
If you don't agree with a post, ignore it. Don't comment, leave it alone, let it die.
Julian is actually making sense here, folks. Of course, why Julian Smith didn't bother to post his long cut&paste diatribe to "make liu", I'll never know, but perhaps it's because Julian knows that NO ONE reads make liu's Rohan posts.
Julian, I tip my hat to you, and please know that I would never wreck John Lennon's song to his mother if I didn't have a reason to.
That being said, I think perhaps you should start your OWN blog (for once) about how people around here get spammed with Loon and Recipe comments and you don't like the blocking of free speech, versus hijacking their posts and copying and pasting your statement 3 times in each.
Peace, and good night.
June 16, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your friend, liam, just posted this over at David Perez's blog. Enjoy.
Reality Check:
The actual truth about where Senator Obama stands.
Barack Obama on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics
Q: Will you vote to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his nomination to be the head of Central Command?
A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.
Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?
A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, "I'm the commander in chief, follow my order?"
A: What I will do is say, "We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook."
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission
Q: You have said "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most." No matter what the military commanders say?
A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That's not the role of the generals. The president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million
Obama stretched the facts when he said there are "two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq." The Red Cross put the figure of those displaced inside the country at 2.3 million as of Sept. 2007, and lowered its estimate to 2.2 million as the security situation improved and some people have returned home. As for displaced Iraqis outside the nation's borders, according to a recent report from the UN, that figure is around 2 million.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable
I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely. Now, the estimates are maybe that's two brigades per month. At that pace it would be some time in 2009 that we had our combat troops out, depending on whether Bush follows through on his commitment to draw down from the surge. We don't know that yet. We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month. That's money that could be going in South Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school. When McCain says we'll be there for 50 or 60 or 100 years, it is not just the loss of life, which is obviously the most tragic aspect of it, it's also the fact that financially it is unsustainable. We will have spent $2 trillion at least, it's estimated, by the time this whole thing is over. That's enough to have rebuilt every road, bridge, hospital, school in the US, and still have money left over.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism
KEYES: What probability was there that there was going to be a biological or nuclear attack against the US [from Iraq]? Bush acted to reduce that probability to zero.
OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.
KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11
Q: Is the Iraq War the right war at the right time?
OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.
KEYES: The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff. Maybe that's why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.
OBAMA: I don't think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than Donald Rumsfeld's or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama on Iraq War
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable
Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?
A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis
Q: Will you use every tool in our country's arsenal to prevent civil war in Iraq after troops are pulled out?
A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we're as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there' not reason why we shouldn't be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
The Iraq war has undermined our security
We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats
It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. When McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening. If we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security. It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy or fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war
We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.
But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
We have set the bar so low in Iraq
Q: There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught. The number of US casualties has gone down. What do you say?
A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start
It is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy. It was not just a problem of execution. They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. Even McCain has acknowledged that. Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home. That is an argument we are going to have an easier time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this. That's part of the reason why I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent
The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use US Military Force in Iraq." Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war. Clinton has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one. The judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. It's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world. The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real--and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That's the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That's what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The surge is not working toward enduring peace
Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt--the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan
We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Get our troops out by the end of 2009
I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
No permanent bases in Iraq
My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
Posted by liam
June 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Julian, liam's post on was on topic to that thread. Deep breaths, man...
June 16, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/obamas-fathers-day-message.php
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/good-news-and-awful-news.php
These are just two samples of the reason I wrote this post tonight. I'm sure Aunt Sam and cvilledem and others have had the same done unto them.
My point is, must one go and spam other people's posts from three days ago just to make a point today? Freedom of speech is our most sacred right, as far as I'm concerned, but hijacking to the point of harrassment, Julian, is another.
I like where you wanted to go with this thought of yours, Julian, and I agree with it to a point, but when you just get downright silly and abusive, you make the Loons spam and the Recipe spam make sense.
Okay, NOW I'm done. Peace, and good night.
June 16, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I only cut and paste back the block posts other people put into the comment threads of people they don't agree with. I put liams loon post into yours because you thought it was funny when he did it to Seaton and Perez.
So here's the deal. I only do it to you when you do it to others.
I don't do it to people I "disagree" with. That's a misunderstanding or mischaracterization.
So if you don't want the block posts you put in other people's threads coming back at you, stop trying to suppress free speech.
Seaton and Perez have a right to post here and to try to find an audience and have a discussion.
June 16, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong again, Lis. They haven't been block posting to screw up threads.
June 16, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
But liam has, and, since he's not posting himself, I'll just park it here until he does.
Reality Check:
The actual truth about where Senator Obama stands.
Barack Obama on War & Peace
Democratic Jr Senator (IL)
President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics
Q: Will you vote to confirm Gen. David Petraeus in his nomination to be the head of Central Command?
A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.
Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?
A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, "I'm the commander in chief, follow my order?"
A: What I will do is say, "We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook."
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008
President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission
Q: You have said "we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most." No matter what the military commanders say?
A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That's not the role of the generals. The president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel
Q: Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option that poses a threat to Israel. Should it be US policy to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the US?
OBAMA: Our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons, &that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
Q: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: It is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we would consider unacceptable, and the US would take appropriate action.
Q: Sen. Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the US, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008
FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million
Obama stretched the facts when he said there are "two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq." The Red Cross put the figure of those displaced inside the country at 2.3 million as of Sept. 2007, and lowered its estimate to 2.2 million as the security situation improved and some people have returned home. As for displaced Iraqis outside the nation's borders, according to a recent report from the UN, that figure is around 2 million.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable
I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely. Now, the estimates are maybe that's two brigades per month. At that pace it would be some time in 2009 that we had our combat troops out, depending on whether Bush follows through on his commitment to draw down from the surge. We don't know that yet. We are spending $9 billion to $10 billion every month. That's money that could be going in South Carolina to lay broadband lines in rural communities, to put kids back to school. When McCain says we'll be there for 50 or 60 or 100 years, it is not just the loss of life, which is obviously the most tragic aspect of it, it's also the fact that financially it is unsustainable. We will have spent $2 trillion at least, it's estimated, by the time this whole thing is over. That's enough to have rebuilt every road, bridge, hospital, school in the US, and still have money left over.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism
KEYES: What probability was there that there was going to be a biological or nuclear attack against the US [from Iraq]? Bush acted to reduce that probability to zero.
OBAMA: There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe because it betrayed a set of international rules that were in place to protect us, that could have helped us defeat terrorism. Mr. Keyes implied that by fighting this war in Iraq we have reduced the probability of a terrorist attack to zero. That cannot be the case when we have nuclear fuel lying around in the former Soviet Union. We still have ports that are insecure. We have nuclear and chemical plants that are still insecure. The notion that we have eliminated the terrorist threat while Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan is simply not the case.
KEYES: We have reduced the probability of an attack from Saddam Hussein to zero.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11
Q: Is the Iraq War the right war at the right time?
OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.
KEYES: The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff. Maybe that's why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.
OBAMA: I don't think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than Donald Rumsfeld's or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Barack Obama on Iraq War
$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable
Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?
A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we've been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008
Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis
Q: Will you use every tool in our country's arsenal to prevent civil war in Iraq after troops are pulled out?
A: If we are doing this right, if we have a phased redeployment where we're as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, then there' not reason why we shouldn't be able to prevent the wholesale slaughter some people have suggested might occur. And part of that means we are engaging in the diplomatic efforts that are required within Iraq, among friends, like Egypt, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but also enemies like Iran and Syria. They have to have buy-in into that process. We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else.
Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
The Iraq war has undermined our security
We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives. Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again. This has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats
It is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and permanent bases in Iraq. When McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening. If we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security. It is important for us to set a date. Because if we are going to send a signal t the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, Sunni, & Kurds to actually come together & negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy or fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war
We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.
But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.
I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
We have set the bar so low in Iraq
Q: There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught. The number of US casualties has gone down. What do you say?
A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start
It is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy. It was not just a problem of execution. They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. Even McCain has acknowledged that. Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start? We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home. That is an argument we are going to have an easier time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this. That's part of the reason why I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent
The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use US Military Force in Iraq." Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war. Clinton has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one. The judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. It's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world. The terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real--and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale. That's the kind of leadership that we need from the next president of the US. That's what I intend to provide.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008
The surge is not working toward enduring peace
Tonight Pres. Bush said that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true. Yes, our valiant soldiers have helped reduce the violence. But let there be no doubt--the Iraqi government has failed to seize the moment to reach compromises necessary for an enduring peace. That was what we were told the surge was all about. So the only way we're finally going to pressure the Iraqis to reconcile and take responsibility for their future is to immediately begin a responsible withdrawal.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan
We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008
Get our troops out by the end of 2009
I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we're going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we're neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
No permanent bases in Iraq
My first job as president is going to be to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to responsibly, carefully, but deliberately start to phase out our involvement there and to make sure that we are putting the onus on the Iraqi government to come together and do what they need to do to arrive at peace. I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We're going to have to protect our civilians. We're engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaida is creating bases inside of Iraq. So I cannot guarantee that we're not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there, but it is not going to be engaged in a war and it will not be this sort of permanent bases and permanent military occupation that Bush seems to be intent on.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
Posted by liam
June 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Julian, you say you have
And you imply that
I disagree: you stand up for being right!
Your actions portray you as a true bully, as a control-needy vigilante.
Obviously, you believe that cut-and-paste responses are inapropriate because they block free speech. You are entitled to your opinion.
Obviously, some people think that cut-and-paste responses are just a form of free speech. They are entitled to their opinion.
Anyhow, to "protect" free speech, you go on to perpetuate the very sinful cut-and-past job that you condemn.
Puzzling!
Unless, of course, you think that free speech is not for sinners like Liam, kgb, Lis, Chino Blanco...
Here is the cut-and-paste job of my own comment to you (unacknowledged as of yet,) earlier today:
Everyone here has a right (whether you agree or not,) to interpret a blog as they wish; and to respond as they wish.
The job of censoring any abusive posting or punishing any poster is not yours; it is the site administrator's.
I was trying to understand and, given your tone-deaf response, now I do: This tantrum of yours brings you some kind of pleasure.
Carry on!
June 16, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd for a laudable effort. And the author is as fair and generous as always.
June 16, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a lovely sentiment, Lis.
And I could only think last night that this Julian has way too much time on his hands. And is stuck in being the Middle School hall monitor who got no respect. Do you think he'll manage to recapture it here at TPM? :)
June 16, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does take time. Want to help? When you see someone trashing a thread by posting recipes and bird descriptions, instead of joining in, cut what they put into the thread and paste it back to their own posts.
Lis gets it. She ridicules it, but she gets it.
June 16, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Julian, don't make it bad.
Take a sad song
and make it better.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
June 16, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been inspired by the TPMers who put an end to that Obama monkey toy.
They showed that you can make a difference if you stand up for what's right. So far liam and kgb have been the worst offenders, egged on Chino, who came up with the "open thread" idea and a couple of people like Lis.
Of course, after defending Seaton, I have to scrape myself off and take a shower.
June 16, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand better than you might think.
You were worried about the slippery slope effect that did, apparently happen.
I've been there. I actually agree with your sentiments, I'm just not too thrilled with your methods.
I think you would have done better to stick to your excellent arguments and left it at that. Let people figure out that your point was valid, and your warning timely.
Now people see you as obnoxious, rather than level-headed. That's a shame.
June 16, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who has he actually done it to? I see a lot of threats and warnings, but, except for LisB, did he actually post somebody's spam back at them? Maybe everybody should back my call for bloggers being able to moderate comments to their own posts.
June 16, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check the links in LisB's second comment here, for starters.
June 16, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!
June 16, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lighting my Bic. Waving my arms.
June 16, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you never quite get it right, do you Lis? You didn't quite get the fact that I only do it to people who are doing it to other people so they'll see how it feels? And to people like you who should know better but encourage the clowns. You seem to be a nice person, but you should think before you post.
June 16, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even bother to look at the bottom of the loon comment to see who posted it in the first place?
June 16, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Julian, and I do get it. I got it the first time you did it. And I got it the second time you did it. And the third...and the fourth...
I laughed at liam's loon comment and told liam I prefer the apple pie recipe comment, and therefore you chose to go to my post from three days ago (make that four days ago, now) and copy/paste liam's entire comment into my post. You did this to everybody who participated in the "open thread", and while I applaud you for making the point about free speech (scroll up, I do believe I applauded you at some point up there), I am finding your whole "hall monitor" routine to be a bit silly and childish. Hence, my post.
I'm all for fairness, but I'm also not all for grown-ups treating other grown-ups as if they are children. Thanks.
June 16, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
We understand each other then. Play fair and you'll be all right. Otherwise, what goes around comes around.
June 16, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we all get it.
And now you're being sanctimonious and obnoxious.
What's your payoff here? Improving TPM Readers' Blogs? Or being morally superior?
June 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just like barbeque. Here's a recipe your friend kgb inserted into a thread yesterday.
Guess you forgot this one, dickhead. Or did you think it was gone. Here. Take it with you. But don't worry if you lose it again. I'll bring it around next time you post.
Source:
Rev. Frank Purvis of Hassel, North Carolina
Serves/Makes:1 quart plus
Ingredients
* 1 quart (950 ml) cider vinegar
* 1/4 lb (.1 kg). melted butter
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) onion, minced
* 1/3 cup (80 ml) tomato paste
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). soy sauce
* 2 cloves minced garlic
* 1 tsp (5 ml). freshly ground black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients, cook and stir over low heat for 15 minutes.
* Remove from heat and use as a basting sauce for grilling meats.
* Also as a dipping sauce when serving the meats.
-------------------------------
Description:
MUSTARD BASED BARBEQUE SAUCE
Source:
FARMER'S ALMANAC
Ingredients
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) yellow mustard
* 3/4 cup (175 ml) red wine vinegar
* 1/4 cup (60 ml) sugar
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) butter
* 2 tsp (10 ml) salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) worcestshire
* 1-1/4 tsp (6 ml) black pepper
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml) Tabasco
Preparation
* combine ingredients in saucepan.
* simmer 30 minutes over low heat.
* Let stand 1 hour before using.
* Refrigerate unused sauce.
Comments
This is a little different than the normal barbecue sauce. In South Carolina this is the normal. I love it. My family eats it on everything from hamburger to ribs. If you dont like spicy you can leave out the hot sauce. ENJOY!!!!
---------------------------------------------
Source:
Chuck's Collection
Serves/Makes:3 cups
Ingredients
* 2 cups (475 ml) cider vinegar
* 2/3 cup (150 ml) ketchup
* 1/2 cup (125 ml) brown sugar
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Tabasco
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). lemon juice
* 1 tbsp (15 ml). Worchestershire sauce
* 2 tbsp (30 ml). butter
* 1 tsp (5 ml). red pepper flakes
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). salt
* 1/2 tsp (2 ml). black pepper
Preparation
* Combine all ingredients.
* Cook for 30 minutes over medium low heat.
* Allow to cool before using
-----------------------------------------------
Source:
Terri Mckibbon
Serves/Makes:6 or more
Ingredients
* Ribs:
* 6 lbs (2.7 kg). pork baby back ribs
* 4 oz (112 grm). tap water
* 3 cups (700 ml) barbecue sauce
* Barbecue Sauce:
* 1-1/2 tbsp (20 ml) olive oil
* 2 oz (56 grm). Spanish onion, chopped
* 1 oz (28 grm). scallion, chopped
* 2 oz (56 grm). fresh green pepper, chopped
* 2 cloves garlic, minced
* 1-1/4 oz (35 grm). brown sugar
* 2 tsp (10 ml). chili powder
* 2 tsp (10 ml). dried oregano
* 1 tsp (5 ml). ground cloves
* 1 tsp (5 ml). cayenne pepper
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). paprika powder
* 1 tsp (5 ml). dry mustard
* 2 oz (56 grm). lemon juice
* 3 oz (84 grm). Worcestershire sauce
* 3 oz (84 grm). red wine vinegar
* 1-1/2 cups (350 ml) crushed tomatoes
* 4-1/2 oz (126 grm). chile sauce
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). ketchup
* 3 oz (84 grm). grandma molasses
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). honey
* 1-1/2 oz (42 grm). Crystal Hot Louisiana sauce
Preparation
* Sauce:
* Heat oil in pot.
* Add onions, scallions and peppers and saute.
* Add garlic, sugar, and remaining dry ingredients.
* Add liquid ingredients and continue to stir.
* Simmer 3 hours, until flavor mixes well.
* Ribs:
* Remove back sinew of ribs and sear on hot grill, both sides.
* Place ribs in roasting pan.
* Combine water and sauce and pour over ribs.
* Bring to boil on stove and cover with foil.
* Place in 350 degree (175 C.) oven until tender, but not falling off bone.
* Cool before serving.
Comments
Serve with plenty of napkins.
Excellent Dish.
Posted by kgb999
June 15, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see this make the rec list.
For what it's worth, I don't think there's some gathering storm of incivility that threatens to wreck the feature of TPMCafé that this lowly commenter has come to enjoy most of all: reader posts.
At the same time, I do appreciate oceankat's concern, noted elsewhere, that certain responses to troll infestation wind up looking terribly misguided if the chosen response merely inconveniences our peers whilst nourishing our trolls.
I mention oceankat because oceankat is no troll. I know this because when I say something stupid in comments, oceankat's response is not to launch a campaign, but rather to coherently describe my stupidity in a scathing reply. That is at it should be.
I think it should also be the case that we be allowed to have a little fun here without fear of being called out as fascists. Jerk? Maybe. Fascist? C'mon, get real.
I'm a jerk, but I don't post more than once per day. Those who do, well, I think you're asking for whatever comes your way. Sure, maybe you've got multiple fresh daily insights to share. If so, rock on. Post. If not, and you still post, and then get hit with an open thread, well, that's just one way of saying 'thank you' for providing a bit of functionality that TPM has, until now, so far lacked. In other words ... Rock on, 'dominickdesid' and 'make liu' and and 'testing' ... thanks for the open threads ... but please understand that, while I enjoy the chance you provide to socialize with my peers, I also continue to harbor resentment toward your disregard for the commons.
I'm a jerk, but I don't use a fresh post to grandstand or complain about how well or poorly previous posts of mine were received. If a post is lauded or panned, TPM affords the author a window of opportunity for replying to commenter views before the post slips into oblivion. Use it. Don't show up with the same post 3 times in a row and expect the response to improve. And, yeah, I'm lookin' at you, Seaton. If Larry Johnson was still posting here, you wouldn't have to feel like a special case, but he's not, so you are.
I'm a jerk, and I comment, and I drink. Not always in that particular order, and usually in reverse order. If you have the misfortune of knowing any heavy drinkers in your life, you'll know we love to apologize for our antics. I'm no exception. I've regretted several comments I've made here at TPM, but that just makes me a drunk, not a fascist, and certainly not someone who regrets whatever can of whoop-ass gets opened up on those who truly show no regard for what's goin' on here, which is mostly all good.
June 16, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fair comment. And I thought about it before I tried to intervene. But it's started spreading. First they went after Seaton, then they went after Perez. I figure you didn't think through the implications of what you were setting off when you came up with the "open thread" idea as a way of shutting down bloggers you think of as trolls. It didn't even take one day before people started doing it to bloggers they don't like or who they disagree with. There are apparently still people here who are promoting Clinton, for whatever reason. Some of them are promoting her by pointing out gaps in the Obama candidacy she fills. Others, like Seaton, are just tearing Obama down. It's not that easy to tell the difference.
June 16, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a matter of fact, look at Seaton's post this morning.
June 16, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did look at Seaton's post this morning. I read the entire thing, read all the comments, and then posted my own comment, and then recommended his post.
Yes, Julian, we can all play fair sometimes.
I suppose it depends on the post.
June 16, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Julian,
You have legitimate concerns, but truth be told, plenty of decent-minded folks here attempted to engage your concerns in comments, and you didn't give them the benefit of the doubt.
This is not mydd. This is not dKos. That's why I'm here. I don't like cliques. I don't speak for anyone else. That's part of the reason I like Chino Blanco to keep up the brusque manner. It's why I don't bridle when others are equally brusque. It's why I'm here. I don't need others to tell me how to think, and I appreciate the opportunity to be proven wrong.
I'm willing to get real and knock off pretending to be Chino Blanco for this comment. I'm here because Josh got me hooked years ago when he appeared as an utterly decent voice in this new media. I believe in the Zionist project, but understand all the tension that that belief brings. It's the same tension that obtains in every situation where decent, ethical, hopeful, intelligent folks are asked to plot the way forward at the same time we cannot unlearn the painful awareness of what's gone on before. So, here we are.
I might think Josh got it wrong on Iraq, but once he got it right, I knew it wasn't just because he saw where things were headed - it was because he takes his politics with a healthy dose of humanity. And with that humanity, comes the acceptance that we all make mistakes. Do we run? Do we hide? Do we create new domains that our supporters can flock to? No. We deal.
So, my question to you is: am I, are we, allowed to make mistakes here? And if you allow me that - if you allow us that - how much effort do you really think is required to bring your objections to our attention?
My simple answer is: not as much as you suppose.
I had an idea. You launched a campaign. Let's call it a day and get on with making this place worth visiting.
If I admit I could've qualified my idea with some useful caveats, will you admit that perhaps your campaign has been just a little bit over the top?
One last thing, Seaton is not being attacked by anonymous mean-spirited commenters.
If you wanna know who I am, just ask. Here's some pics of my family:
http://pantaohui.blogspot.com/
Choose your battles wisely. Fratricide sucks. If you think that's unfair, well, that's Chino talking. As for me, I'm outta here.
June 16, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a deal, as long as the behavior stops.
June 16, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that's the rub, isn't it? I don't get to decide when behavior starts and stops. That's up to everyone involved. Or not. As if I know how this is all supposed to work?
That bit of uncertainty on my part notwithstanding, I still believe this all somehow gets worked out in the end, especially if we're willing to take a breath, take a walk, and then come back here assuming the best, rather than the worst, about our opponents.
I mean, go figure that we all see things slightly differently. So what? As long as the difference is informative, who's complaining? You and your army of one? Or does Seaton make two? C'mon. It's only when it stops being informative that any of us pipes up to suggest that we call it a day and just enjoy the fact that we find ourselves here. Hence the 'open thread' suggestion.
As a commenter, I'm no different from you, except that in my case, I seem to understand that I'm simply a nobody with an opinion, whereas you seem to think your appeal to authority is somehow gonna cow me into shutting my trap, or coolin' the goofin' off, or whatever, because you're somehow carryin' a directive from HQ by mentioning Josh's name.
Fuck that. I'm a relatively old fart who's not forgotten being told that when the revolution comes, we'd all have strawberries and cream. Problem is, back before I became an old fart, I was already the asshole in the back asking "what if I don't like strawberries and cream?" ...
And now you're the asshole tellin' me, well, when the revolution comes, you'll learn to like the strawberries and cream.
No. I won't. And I probably won't even learn to like workerbee before this election cycle is over, either. But I've already learned enough here to know that I should grow up and reserve some respect for a commenter like workerbee, even if it's just the respect that comes with showin' up for the job. Workerbee's earned it, I won't deny it, now back to the fray. Can we move on now, or do you refuse to be satisfied until the entire community has weighed in on your campaign?
Julian, you've earned nothing and you've flaunted plenty. Chill out and you'll be welcome here. Keep it up and you just might provide the fuckin' unity that's been in such goddam short supply around here. As if we ever needed unity. We don't. We're here to describe what unity might look like, not faint for your amusement when it doesn't happen.
And yeah, that's all Chino talkin'. Lord knows I wouldn't have the balls to lay it out for you like that. Prick.
June 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw! Your family is beautiful.
I enjoy your comments and posts, Chino. They're intelligent, down-to-earth, witty, and genuine.
June 16, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded. Hear hear.
June 16, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
In defense of Loons and Recipes...
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the idea of adding nonesensical stuff to a "troll post" was in lieu of arguing with the "troll" ("feeding"). It was meant to be a benign way of recognizing troll spam and replacing the attendent "bickering" with something humorous.
It was not an anti-free speech move as the original poster was not prevented in any way from making his or her point. The post exists, the poster makes his or her point, they were not censored.
What is different is that "troll-bashing" is replaced with something less caustic and -- in most cases -- more fun. I'd rather see recipes and loon narratives than expletive laced personal attacks.
No one is precluded from posting. Dominickdesid still brings us his LaRouche ads. He gets his moment in the sun, posts his ad, and instead of raising our blood pressure we get a laugh. And one that is not at the expense of the "troll".
June 16, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
In defense of Loons and Recipes...
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the idea of adding nonesensical stuff to a "troll post" was in lieu of arguing with the "troll" ("feeding"). It was meant to be a benign way of recognizing troll spam and replacing the attendent "bickering" with something humorous.
It was not an anti-free speech move as the original poster was not prevented in any way from making his or her point. The post exists, the poster makes his or her point, they were not censored.
What is different is that "troll-bashing" is replaced with something less caustic and -- in most cases -- more fun. I'd rather see recipes and loon narratives than expletive laced personal attacks.
No one is precluded from posting. Dominickdesid still brings us his LaRouche ads. He gets his moment in the sun, posts his ad, and instead of raising our blood pressure we get a laugh. And one that is not at the expense of the "troll".
June 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the double posting... damn software!
June 16, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Posting blocks of text to shut down the thread of someone you consider "a troll" is the equivalent of shouting the poster and anyone who might want to engage him or her down. You can easily find examples of posters who "deserve" that kind of treatment. I don't think Seaton and Perez do. But the real point is all you have to do is not respond to or recommend the posts. I don't even read the ones you're talking about. But if another Larouchean happened to wander in, they have a right to talk here, without us shouting them down with recipes and other crap. At least that's how I see it.
June 16, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indeed.
I think what people were objecting to was the volume of posts. If the Larouchies post 5 times a day they knock other deserving posts off.
I think that is why this started, no?
June 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. But a good point. Posting recipes does nothing to keep them from posting five times a day, though. Does it? As a matter of fact, since it acknowledges their existence, it makes it more likely they will post five times a day. At least that's how I see it.
June 16, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which came first? The chicken recipe, or the egg recipe?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
June 16, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if it doesn't make it less likely, so what? At least it becomes an opportunity to exchange recipes. That's at least something, isn't it? Something a sight bit better than suggesting we all STFU and allow unworthy posts a dignity they don't deserve.
Seriously, what's your damage? And who are you in all this? Have you ever even fucking posted anything here? "Jeebus cripes on a crisp" (see, I read and pick up funny shit like this around here) ... Post already, get over yourself, and you might be surprised at how well you're treated.
June 16, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or was that "Jeebus gripes on a crisp" ?
Either way. I'd argue there's never enough newfangled blasphemy to warrant splitting hairs, but admittedly may have totally misremembered this one.
June 16, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as someone who has posted here, I guess I should weigh in. If you want to exchange recipes, why not open a blog to exchange recipes? We opened one yesterday to exchange some music. Now we're looking for Jason of the Argonauts.
Seems fair to me that if we crap on people's threads we shouldn't whine when they crap on ours. As just about everybody who reads my comments knows, I think bloggers should be able to moderate their comments.
I've managed to strike quite a few mutual ignoring deals with people I don't like. And, to me, the essence of the deal is we really do stay away from one another. I don't comment on their threads, they don't comment on mine, and, if we meet on some thread, we don't reply to one another. Great peace of mind. At least for me. And I hope for them, too.
June 16, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because, if you wrote a post specifically for exchanging recipes, you'd necessarily be knocking another (presumably more topical) post off the front page.
Because, as there is no 'open thread' functionality here, why not make do with the detritus at hand?
But mostly because a herpes outbreak and a smallpox epidemic call for different responses. This ain't the pox, it's a flare-up: Herpes Simplex J. Whatever lifestyle changes might be called for are temporary.
June 16, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems simple enough. Anyone can start an open thread that can easily last the whole day. Ask people not to recommend it so it doesn't take up a rec spot. I doubt anyone would mind it taking up one spot on the list of 25 recent posts, and when it falls off the list, people can still easily find it.
I get the motivation between the open thread idea. But it is a can of worms, because we know people will abuse it. I stopped by a post yesterday. I didn't agree with it at all. Wanted to argue. Thought it was something worth discussing. Someone else apparently decided it was a troll post, so I left pretty fast realizing no conversation could ever really take place around all that.
June 16, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fair. I agree that the best days of the copying-and-pasting fad are probably behind us. It was fun, but conversation is ultimately what we're here for. At the same time, what's the big deal about navigating around a German Potato Salad recipe? I'm no gourmet, but it looked damn yummy.
That said, damn if I'm gonna sit still when a character like Julian arrives on the scene actin' like he's sportin' some kinda badge that gives him the right to make a hash of otherwise very worthwhile posts.
Particularly when this is a character who's never even bothered to produce a single post of his own.
Until it posts, we're just talkin' in circles here, 'cuz absent a post, trying to debate the finer points of sharing this space is just masochistic. Post, Julian, post. Otherwise, fuck off.
June 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems fair to me that if we crap on people's threads we shouldn't whine when they crap on ours.
And that's the kicker in all this.
Nobody ever crapped on Julian's threads because he's never had any threads to begin with.
It'd be something like me deciding my job was to defend your posts by infesting everyone else's threads.
In the end, that would embarrass me and you both, wouldn't it?
I mean, I don't know you from Adam, but I sure as hell don't presume to play Guardian Angel for the 'vulnerable' Billy Glad. As if. From what I've read, I'd be an idiot to think you're not capable of standing up for yourself, and that leads me to believe that you've got enough self-respect that you'd tire of my "spare Billy" routine very, very soon after seeing my first comment trying to running interference for you.
Seaton, on the other hand, is quite eager to let Julian know that he appreciates the assist, while at the same time Seaton himself never deigns to get involved in any other threads, other than his own, and even then, only to drop the most obvious of sarcastic remarks.
I'm about done talkin' about this, but, damn, what a crazy episode.
June 16, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just personal advice, Billy, from past experience as a moderator. take it or leave it.
The increasing use of avatars and user names to role play here was a sign the site was going in the adolescent gamer culture direction. One member here a couple of weeks back said something like "part of blogging is playing with people's heads." That theory is in direct conflict with the idea of a forum where people come to discuss things "in good faith." I don't care how sophisticated the role play is, mho, it is destructive to the intent of thoughtful discussion or learning anything other than what role playing can do, and it belongs more in pyschologists' offices.
You seem to like part of that game, you participate in it if you feel the opponent is up to your standards. By doing that, you reinforce the game, that it's all about game and not content. It's destructive to good discussion and content try to psychoanalyze other users and not to stick to the actual content of their writing, to take it as being written in good faith, or ignore, don't feed, if it is trollish. If you don't expect good faith posting, you won't get it, you'll just get gaming and the gaming will take over the content.
You might enjoy that part of it. But my experience is that many are dragged into it as an addiction, get real personal, and wake up a year or two later bummed out that they spent all this psychological energy on anonymous people on the internet, to the detriment of using that energy in their life in the real world, and didn't get much knowledge out of it. It happened to me, and I saw it happen to other on the site I moderated.
If you don't like people getting personal, don't get personal yourself. Asking others to stay away is just taken as a challenge if you are still participating in the game.
I understand the thrill of being trained to communicate better with all kinds of people by trial and error. But consider stopping at the door of getting into psychoanalysis, stay focused on the original reason, the content.
June 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you and appreciate the advice. I've noticed that the people who don't like me pretty much settle for a shot here and there now and then. I'm trying to ignore them completely now. We'll see how that goes. I'm getting pretty busy these days anyway. I appreciate your concern a lot. I'm going to stay out of this now, too. It really is TPM's problem. Not mine.
Agree about the avatars. After spending months here as Kyle Reese, I went back to my diary and tried to write about the experience. Empty.
June 16, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Nothing good from the Kyle Reese angle? Surprising.
Avatars are fascinating things. I like to watch how one's avatar affects how they are received. Particularly in conjunction with how their words either mesh or conflict with them.
Kyle definitely had an effect on people.
June 16, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate speech is not free speech, you twit. Seaton has posted outright racist comments on TPM for several months. You can hug a KKK type all you want to, and proclaim that they should not encounter any protests, or resistance. I have learned from history. You coddle that sort of vermin at your peril. Never again. I love the scene in the Blues Brothers where they drive through and scatter the American Nazi demonstration.
June 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply |