Margaret Carlson on Dem Vet Candidates: a GOOD column!!! (Bloomberg)

[Sparkly]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=aHUkkFflVwso

"Democratic Vets Take On Republican Civilians"

She ends with this:

The dearth of leaders with military backgrounds making decisions about going to war brings to mind General George Patton's line that the idea is not for you to die for your country, but for someone else to do so. He meant the enemy. But the admonition now has meaning domestically, as those sending someone else to die are removed from peril, as are their children.

Facts may not matter. Just look at the last presidential race. When the opposition was done besmirching the Democratic nominee's war record, you would have thought Bush, who protected Texas on weekends when he could find the time, had won more medals for bravery than John Kerry, a decorated war veteran.

A poll released this week showed a public growing weary of the administration's efforts to merge the war in Iraq with the war on terror. Voters may take the word of candidates who have fought there: Criticism of the Iraq war doesn't mean weakness on the fight against terror. Then we could have a real debate on just who has made the world a more dangerous place.

[whistle]

1. Somewhere I read that close to 100% of Iraq War 1 vets had suffered

...serious heath problems and issues. I can't locate the actual article, but it was posted on DU several weeks ago. It seems that U.S. troops going into battle will die prematurely whether in actual combat or as a result from exposure to the numerous weapons toxins, depleted uranium, vaccines and other lethal substances.

[Parisle]

2. The "Covert War?"

---- The depleted uranium controversy hasn't even reached "tip of the iceberg" status, yet. Are we fighting a regional war,... or are we using that war as a decoy to cover the long-term poisoning of that region? (Along with our own "expendable" troops, of course)

[Blast from the Past]

3. Complete hogwash!

My son is a decorated Marine, Iraqi combat veteran. I know numerous members of the Army's 3rd heavy combat brigade. Your statement is complete hogwash.
The democrat argument is not made with half truths and distortion. It is very unfair to our troops and it is destructive to credibility in future debates.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blast from the Past]

6. How silly

Excuse me! But since when is having truth and facts considered a position only for those with handlers?

That is exactly why the right can so successfully demonize the left. Both the left and the right should be most concerned with truth and facts not just spin and propaganda.

Thanks for the honest intellectual welcome. You don't know anything about me or my positions, however you feel justified in denigrating and demeaning me, because my first post does not meet with your criteria for honest debate. Whew that is scary, isn't that the type of thing the right is always accused of doing?

Seek the truth and the truth shall set you free. The facts should not frighten anyone, unless you are trying to hide some silly agenda.

I'm not, I just felt complelled to state the obvious, from first hand knowledge and experience. What is so bad about that?

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Anyone can make any claim, righteous or specious

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

7. I don't know about the "close to 100%" but the first gulf war HAS had

devastating health consequences for a great number of veterans.

I didn't see the article referenced by the poster. Did you?

Btw, what do you think of Margaret Carlson's piece?

[Bandit]

9. I agree with you completely but you will catch hell by the use

of Democrat Party instead of the correct form Democratic Party. It is a Republican smear of the Party to shorten the correct wording in such a way. But you are absolutely correct in that we do not need to be found not credible..No one could possibly believe that 100% of our military in Iraq will suffer in such a manner...

[Blast from the Past]

13. I do believe

I do believe the proper form of the word would be Democrat party. One might believe in democratic ideals, but the party itself is the democrat party not the democratic party.

Funny how folks are so touchy around here.

I've been a visitor here for some time, but once you post for the first time. One is under very close scrutiny to make sure one is politically correct. That puts me off, being a 60's type, "rules are for fools" type fellow.

I came of age during a time of free expression and expansion of the human ideals. I'm a little shocked by the stern school teacher type of enforcement of political correctness displayed by members of my long time party, on this site.

[Sparkly]

14. You are wrong.

From Merriam-Webster:

DEMOCRATIC
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy
2 often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the United States evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Democratic

DEMOCRAT
Function: noun
1 a : an adherent of democracy b : one who practices social equality
2 capitalized : a member of the Democratic party of the United States
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democrat

How long have you been using "Democrat" as an adjective? Seems to be a recent 'development.' If you read DU a lot, you probably know why it's something of a sore spot among Democrats.

What did you think of Carlson's essay, btw?

[Blast from the Past]

25. Curious

Tell me when you went to register to vote, did you register as a democrat or as a democratic?

Just curious. I know I'm the new guy around here, but I've been on earth a while and things should be relatively the same in the regular world and here? Or did I miss something?

[Sparkly]

26. "Did you register as a Democrat?"

Yes. (Capital "D," btw.) As I explained, the word "Democrat" is a NOUN.

I registered with the Democratic party. "Democratic" is an ADJECTIVE.

That was when I was 18, and since then I've voted in every election in every state where I've lived, and always as a Democrat, for Democratic candidates.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance as you struggle to comprehend the difference between a noun and an adjective.

[Sparkly]

27. A few more questions for you, Blast (just from curiosity)

1. (Third try) What did you think of the subject of this thread -- Margaret Carlson's article?

2. Why didn't you answer that question the first two times I asked? (Just curious.)

3. (Second try) I've "been on earth a while" too, and the use of the noun "Democrat" as an adjective is a relatively NEW phenomenon, as I said. (Yes, things are "relatively the same in the regular world and here." In the regular world, as I quoted from M-W, "Democrat" is a noun and "Democratic" is an adjective.) So as I asked before, when did you begin using that noun as an adjective?

4. Why do you think you began using "Democrat" as an adjective?

5. I also am a "60s type" in many ways. I don't recall the phrase "rules are for fools," but maybe it's just not an axiom I ever lived by. To me, it's about separating the objective from the subjective to get to the TRUTH. As you said yourself, "The truth shall set you free." One objective truth is that "Democrat" is a noun. Another is that veterans of the first Gulf War are suffering in ways that are still being studied. So my fifth question is: Are you interested in setting yourself free with the truth, Blast?

Because if you are, it seems apparent you've got a road ahead of you. Given your resistance to simple facts of grammar, it SEEMS at least that you're steeped in rightwing deception. If you really want the truth, and want to be free, stick around. If you prefer to defend untruths even in the face of truths, you're making your own chains against the freedom truth provides.

Your choice.

[Sparkly]

28. I have a feeling you're not going to respond here, but...

...seriously, keep your screenname, lurk around, read and question, if you wish.

Just be honest about what you do and don't know. DUers have radar for rightwing lies, memes, slogans, strawmen, and deceptions. (Hence the response to your use of "Democrat" as an adjective.) We're all VERY well familiar with it.

Regarding your first post, I do think there was a study (Oxford or published there) on *mortality* rates among Gulf War vets, concluding they were the same as for other veterans. So there's some validity to what you said, and you could have sourced it. There's plenty of room for discussion here -- for example, about stats for mortality vs. injury, about ongoing studies, about veterans' sites discussing syndromes, etc.

You don't have to believe everything you read here. (If you look around, you'll see we have lots to argue about!) But I think one of the greatest differences between our parties is about political "faith" and reasoned "questioning." Democratic voters tend less to operate on "faith" in our team, less on rallying and seeking reasons to wave our banners and reasons to hate our opponents... We don't look to mold reality into what suits our party affiliation; we base our party affiliation on hard examination of reality.

The other side, it seems to me, plays politics as a team sport. That's a great strength for the GOP. Its disciples are invested in the banners and slogans, the self-identity and teamsmanship, the rallying for "our side." But instead of seeking the actual TRUTH, they seek "come-backs." "How do we respond to this, that, the other." And the RNC is so fantastic at supplying scripts, and the so-called-liberal media so compliant in broadcasting them, that you might not even know you're parroting a carefully-scripted sack of propaganda -- you might choose to believe that what you heard -- and SOUGHT to hear -- is truly a matter of your own opinion (or a matter of "what's correct" or "what it's always been" or "common knowledge" -- like Democrat vs. Democratic, for example).

This method of planting words and ideas, colluding with the media and other corporate interests, demonizing an "enemy within," etc., is NOT without precedent, but I won't go there right now.

I'm just saying, to you and to any others like you... If you take off your uniform, erase the slate of your assumptions, and see things from new, CLEAR eyes -- you'll come to your own, honest, informed, TRUTHful conclusions.

You have the ability to read and think. That's all you need to do. No hard-sells, no propaganda, no brainwashing, no bullshit -- figure it out.

[NMDemDist2]

30. you won't get any answers from this one Sparkly

[mwb970]

31. What a waste of time.

Correct grammar? Appropriate word usage? You are trying to confront the right-wing sympathizer "Blast" with logic and facts. Surely you have learned by now that logic and facts are part of the "reality-based community" scorned by the right. They would rather just make things up.

Railing against these people, pointing out their obvious errors, etc., will have no effect whatever. You might as well talk to the cat.

[ieoeja]

16. Two for Three

First message contained a left handed swipe at "untruthful" Democrats along with the use of a derogatoy phrase commonly used by rightwingers against Democrats.

Third message brings up the "politically correct" meme. Since when is correct grammar considered correct politics?

[Raksha]

20. The "democrat argument"?

That pretty much tells me where you're coming from.

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. That is what I was going to say..funny how the right-wing talking points

are so easily utilized by certain segments of our society...even when they require the use of improper English.

[Clark2008]

24. Do you know English?

It would be "democratic" argument - not "democrat" argument.

I see you've been to the Rush-Limbaugh-I-use-nouns-as-adjectives-school-of-non-English.

:eyes:

[unhappycamper]

17. Of the 579,000 Americans who served in GW1:

about 56% are on permanent medical disability.
almost 2% are dead.

Depleted uranium is bad juju:

http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebPages/IPesic/ResearchPaper.htm
http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/health/index.htm
http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/speakers/moret_text_shock_en.pdf
http://traprockpeace.org/TribTest062803.html
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/du_syndrome.html
http://www.wise-uranium.org/indexd.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6011968,00.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm

There is some smoke out there on the subject. A simple google search yields over four million hits. Corporate news is NOT telling this story.

[whistle]

19. That is the statistic I was looking for so 58% of GW1 vets dead

...or on permanent medical disability which makes the number of casualties to date from GW1 335,820 military personnel and that number will continue to increase over time.

[DeepModem Mom]

8. K&R

[Julius Civitatus]

11. Margaret Carlson became a Bush-lover when it was fashionable to do so

Remember when Chimpy's popularity reached 90% or so? Margaret Carlson was one of the first so-called "liberal" pundits that embraced the Bush cult with a truly embarrassing fervor.

She even wrote a book about how much she loved Bush:



The title of her book was "Anyone Can Grow Up: How George Bush and I Made It to the White House."

To me, Carlson lost credibility then. While I appreciate she's coming back to sanity, I have a hard time taking her seriously again. She married the Bush-daddy figure when it was "cool" to do so. She should be reminded of it at every freakin' turn.

[Sparkly]

12. "Catch them being good"

True, she's far from consistent and has made some pretty bad calls in the past. However, I think of it as akin to one strategy for dealing with difficult children: "Catch them being good, and praise it." So I sent her an email expressing appreciation for this.

(Another example: Joe Scarborough asking "Is Bush and Idiot?" I urged other DUers to drop him a note of appreciation, knowing he'd be getting deluged with hate mail from the other side. Sure enough, the hate mail must have come in in sufficient numbers to have him backpedal a bit later.)

[Julius Civitatus]

15. I don't disagree with you

I think your strategy is good and we should definitely reward good behavior.

That said, Carlson acted like a COWARD during the height of the Bush fever, running along with the Bush cult, criticizing Democrats that didn't clap hard enough, and basically being the cowardly weasel that she was, so her invitations to the right Beltway cocktail parties were secured. She was a cheerleader for Bush, and even went as far as writing a book where she basically lodged her nose way up the presidential rectum, figuratively speaking.

Meanwhile, voices of dissent were literally tar-and-feathered all through the media (Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, Dan Rather, etc).

So sure, it's good she's writing the right stuff, but today that has no merit. Opposing the Bush insanity had merit between 2002 and 2004, when showing a bit of dissent would get people in trouble.

[OzarkDem]

23. She's history

Sold her soul to the GOP devil a long time ago along with the other presstitutes. Hope she has a lot saved up for retirement.

[Sparkly]

18. Kickin' it for the evening crowd, and my fellow Clarkies.

(Yes, Clarkies, you'll want to read this if you haven't!) :kick:

[FrenchieCat]

29. Thanks.....I did want to read that!

:hi:

[OzarkDem]

22. Is she still around?

I thought she stopped covering Democrats a long time ago.

Looking back on so many of those commentators, its like watching dinosaurs.