Has anyone noted the difference between our situation and the one Smith notes in 1776?

..."To them this amusement compensates the small difference between the taxes which they pay on account of the war, and those which they had been accustomed to pay in time of peace."

Just another glaring example of how isolated the military and their families are in this conflict. Not only did I get a tax break of $500, I don't even have to serve.

Poodle Groomers will do.

But...my point wasn't that it offends, its that its used as a way to deligitimize ideas without adressing the points involved. I'd say that the Right Wing does that as well, by calling us "Liberals" and "moon bats". Beneath us, isn't it?

I also find it interesting the way some respond to criticism in cyberspace, it really reminds me of things I hear on Fox--if you don't like it leave, etc., or just shouting people down until they go away. Or rummaging through their post archive to find an example that proves their hypocrites--that's Hannity's favorite. If you are a hypocrite, I obviously don't have to address your point.

I thought that progressive people established a long time ago that all environments had to change in America, the family, the social, the cultural, the political and yes even the electronic. Ok, shout me down (you know who you are).

Yup, yup, you're very much, IMHO, on target.

Furthermore, a lot of the outrage over Rev. Wright's "Damn America!" sermon is tied to the constant "American Exceptionalism" brainwashing that is drummed into our heads from Kindergarten on. Wright challenges the notion of American Exceptionalism and hits the target, and vast numbers of Americans simply do not want to hear it. Wright does it domestically and internationally, and it's as right as rain.

Most Americans are profoundly ignorant of their own history, profoundly ignorant of the circumstances that gave birth to the American Experiment, and are very disturbed when confronted with the truth about this country...one that aspires to lofty ideals and all too often only gives them lipservice.

Someone mentioned that the Civil Rights struggle of the 60's and Vietnam seemed to give us pause, and actually work to make the ideals reality, but of course the Reaganites have been trying desperately to reverse any gains made in the 60's, which remain the bugaboo of the GOP and the "conservatives" who are desperate to return the US to a golden age that never existed. Well, except the part where the black man kept in his place, which is most assuredly NOT running for the office of President of the United States.

its used as a way to deligitimize ideas without adressing the points involved.

No, I disagree. "Troll" is a term with meaning. "A person who is deliberately inflammatory on the Internet in order to provoke a vehement response from other users," according to the all-knowing oracle. I and many others have tried to engage some of our resident trolls in dialogue, with zero success... because dialogue is not their aim.

I am not familiar with blank and haven't seen enough of her/his writing in this thread to judge whether she/he is or isn't a troll. But if blank was misdecribed, it doesn't mean that there's no such thing as trolls, any more than that there's no such thing as communists.

Jerst suds wuze lorded sumtin?

No Lord over anyone then, huh?

A comic bullet? No duck? Swerve!

`

If a bullet is in motion? say, curve.

I'm late. I can't wait until "No Cuss?"

Then my Granddaughter may read?

I've been called a troll here more than once. Inflammatory can mean all kinds of things--it even sometimes means that you're saying things I don't agree with.

I doesn't seem like as obvious a topic for an article to ask those who got it right why they were right, but those who got it wrong should sure ask. Maybe there would be a temptation to boast "I opposed invading because I was smarter than you", but that couldn't be worse than these stupid rationalizations. It looks like their reasons can be boiled down to, "it was a good idea, but carried out badly, therefore I wasn't really wrong." As one of the smart ones, let me mention that the bushies were already apparent fools and crooks, and that was enough reason not to give them the power to go to war.

Jkalos walks into a bar because Glenn would not answer Jkalos questions.

Jkalos drinks goat milk. Jkalos forget his 'Batman Cosmic' book when he leaves.

He goes back inside and punches a lawyer in the nose for reading the COSMIC.

...and the lawyer says, "I think we have a great case against the bartender"

Let's just say that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was every bit as justified as the German invasion of Poland in 1939, and leave it at that.

Inflammatory can mean all kinds of things--it even sometimes means that you're saying things I don't agree with.

No, it doesn't. Inflammatory means "inflammatory." Troll means "troll." The fact that people sometimes misuse terms doesn't mean terms are devoid of meaning.

You have, by your own admission, been "purposely rude" at times, and you got smacked for it. I think you took more heat than you deserved, though I'm not sure you got more than you asked for.

I personally think there is more of a problem with trollery itself than there is with people being misidentified as trolls just for expressing differences vehemently, even rudely. But - as we said way back in the day - your mileage may vary.

I doesn't seem like as obvious a topic for an article to ask those who got it right why they were right, but those who got it wrong should sure ask. ...

-- webcelt

http://www.antiwar.com/

The fellows at antiwar.com "got it right" on that war and many before it. The only problem is they were against war crimes by Democratic Administrations as well as these filthy neo-cons that control this administration and the conduct of this war.

Just today:

Why Did the US Invade Iraq?

by Jim Lobe

So why, exactly, did the US invade Iraq five years ago this week?

The official reasons – the threat posed to the US and its allies by Saddam Hussein's alleged programs of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the possibility that he would pass along those arms to al-Qaeda – have long since been discarded by the overwhelming weight of the evidence, or, more precisely, the lack of evidence that such a threat ever existed.

[...]

A great read by a fine reporter.

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=12552