gary350

Or compassion, vision, empathy. . .

You know me - it was probably democraticunderground or pfaw or commondreams or buzzflash. . . Actually, I read about the book from a commentator on a Libertarian website (gasp!), Bob Wallace, who describes himself as ". . . a mostly conservative, "rightist" libertarian". http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace79.html Deeper article in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2001-09-06.htm

Where? Did you even read it? Is this where all the good little neo-cons start screaming Troll! Troll! again? I have an interesting (IMNERHO) observation that directly relates to and brings a new view to something being discussed, and the rules are being followed. If, like the 500th Dead Americans post, you are embarrassed by the subject or you don't want it brought up because it makes your dear pres look bad, just don't open it. . . Just say NO to dissent or opposing thoughts! Old saying: Minds are like parachutes - they malfunction if you pack them wrong. . . (or something like that. . . )

The thread on Bush malapropisms seems to have taken a turn toward discussion of testing, so I'll start a new one. In 2002, a guy named Mark Crispin Miller wrote a book called Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder. He says he started out to write a humorous look at Bush verbal gaffes, but when he noticed a pattern emerging, it took a dark turn. Miller clearly has strong anti-Bush views, and not being a psychologist, I can't fairly address the assertion of Bush having a "sociopathic personality", but none the less, I find some of the observations very interesting: “He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he’s speaking punitively, when he’s talking about violence, when he’s talking about revenge. When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine,” Miller said. It’s only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes.” “Bush is not an imbecile. He’s not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he’s incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he’s a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss.”

Clarification please. So if, as an American citizen, I disagree strongly with the president on matters pertaining to our military, are you saying I should just not say anything? Or, are you saying that it is OK to disagree with the president and even to talk about it, but if I do, I shouldn't say anything good about the people in the military at the same time (even if that is what I strongly feel) because it might seem contradictory or patronizing to you?

With all due respect, what a crock of shit. I am hardly amused that over 500 fine men and women have died for this corrupt, lieing administration. What I am is disgusted, and when Americans get disgusted, they have the right - some say DUTY - to speak out and try to change things. Disrespectful my ass - I have the utmost respect for the people in our armed forces - so much that I want them to live, not die, or if they have to die, at least do it because it was necessary. In my book it would be disrespectful to look the other way and say nothing and do nothing to see that this doesn't happen again. Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism! P.S. Thank you for your service to America.

I thought that was worth quoting entirely. Anvil, will you keep it there even if I agree with you? Wendy W. Me Too! Do I get a hug???

Shit - all that is old news! Here's a real scoop: Bodies of Roswell Aliens in Texas! Here's the website to prove it: http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/rbodies.html The following message is what we received on our phone, written precisely as it was stated by this source: I got your name from Internet and I figure it's worth a handful of quarters for the Truth. I am just trying to get a message out, so people can look in the right place. I am a former Intelligence Officer and if the people I worked for, knew what I was doing now, it would cost me my job and my future. Not to mention, ruining my family's life. The Roswell film that is going around is not the real film. The real film is accounted for. I wanted to get a clue out, so that people can go and find the Truth. The United States Airforce and the Army Airforce before the Airforce was formed, takes great honor in treating their dead enemy as they would one of their own. The aliens were buried with military honors in an installation in the state of Texas. And in fact, it has been referred to as "The Alien Airforce Cementary". I don't know what all is there, all I know is that some time ago, a document was accidently issued to me inside another document. I destroyed the document (clears his throat at this point in the message), rather than turning it in and letting anybody know what I had read. There was quite a furor but no one could even admit what they were looking for. Sorry, I can't be more helpful but buried in the State of Texas, at a military facility are the remains of the aliens that were taken at Roswell. I hope that someone finds the Truth!

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4065424/

Speaking as someone who lost untold relatives in the holocaust, and as someone who is deeply disgusted by the apathy and "pacifism" in the 30's that greatly contributed to it, I can absolutely say that I have long been a supporter not only of war, when necessary, but even of preemptive action to protect America and our allies. Hell, ask me if George Bush should have taken our kids to Afghanistan to fight and die while kicking the Taliban's ass - hell yes! Fuck them all! This is different! It is NOT necessary! It is based on lies and deceit! We have desperately more important things to do with the money! Please do not infer that anyone who hates this waste of life and money does not ever think there are things worth fighting and dieing for.

This is the first I've heard of that. Can you source it, please? "Since the end of the Vietnam War, presidents have worried that their military actions would lose support once the public glimpsed the remains of U.S. soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets." "To this problem, the Bush administration has found a simple solution: It has ended the public dissemination of such images by banning news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases." "A White House spokesman said Bush has not attended any memorials or funerals for soldiers killed in action during his presidency as his predecessors had done, although he has met with families of fallen soldiers and has marked the loss of soldiers in Memorial Day and Sept. 11, 2001, remembrances." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55816-2003Oct20?language=printer

War or no that seems about the norm anyway. Regardless of a war or not. Half the guys in the military love it and the other half hate it. Moral is of course going to be down anytime a soldier is away from home and in a war zone. I swore up and down that I would never reenlist in the Army. I extended once and reenlisted once. The second time I swore to my CSM I would never reenlist just two days before I actually did. Most soldiers are 18-20 or so anyway. How many 18-20 year olds do you know that are happy all the time with where they are and with what they are doing? So if half of them are happy in the Army then I look at it as something is good. I am not qualified to argue that - it may be dead-on. BUT, I will argue that if you polled during WWII or even Afghanistan, you would not get nearly THESE kind of numbers: "More than one-third said that their mission was "not clearly" or "not at all" defined." "When asked how worthwhile the war in Iraq was for the United States, 67% agreed that it was "worthwhile," while 31% said it was of little or no value." I could be wrong. Just conjecture on my part (as is often the case. . . )

A couple more interesting nuggets from the Stars and Stripes survey: "More than one-third said that their mission was "not clearly" or "not at all" defined. Reservists had the most complaints in this category, the newspaper found, while Air Force and Marine respondents had the least complaints." "When asked how worthwhile the war in Iraq was for the United States, 67% agreed that it was "worthwhile," while 31% said it was of little or no value." Regarding the survey itself, I didn't put it under the headline "Example of Perfect Scientific Survey Found! 100% Accuracy Achieved!" People know (or should know) about sampling error theory. . .

People - please do not give Faber a hard time for his spelling and grammer. He's trying. And for your information, it has NOTHING to do with him being from Denmark or Iraq or wherever, and nothing to do with English not being his first language. For the real explanation, just look at his signature - "BASE850" - nuff said.

>I don't feel lied to. I don't like being called an idiot who can't think for himself either. You may not feel lied to, but millions of others DO, including a huge number of military folks. >Just ask about military moral during the past administrations years. As a general rule it SUCKED. I think you are on the wrong side to be bringing up military morale. It sucks RIGHT NOW! Besides doing nice things like cutting veterans' benefits (while giving massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires), the current administration's policies and lies (IMO) (leading to the belief for many that fighting and dieing in Iraq is not justified, as opposed to Afghanistan - where I'll bet morale is much higher because it IS justified) have contributed to such low morale that even the pentagon admits it has a big problem and is scrambling to find ways to keep folks in the armed forces. Not to mention the reports of suicides and AWOLs being way up. A recent survey of service folks in Iraq (with a fairly large sample size) showed these results: "Washington - A survey of US troops in Iraq . . . has found that nearly three-quarters of those questioned said unit morale was low or average, and that nearly half did not plan to re-enlist. " OK - Itching to start the flaming about my "Liberal Hate Site" sources??? Huh? Huh? Try "Stars and Stripes", links below. . . Index Page for series on morale: http://www.stripes.com/morale/ Specific article with the survey data: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=17516&archive=true Another good one: "Esprit de corps higher when mission is defined" (duh) http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=17462&archive=true P.S. Thank you for your service! (and no, there is NOT even the slightest hint of sarcasm there - dead fucking serious from the bottom of my heart)

At least that seems more thought out than the whining, wailing cries of "TROLL!" I thought it was an incredibly sad and interesting milestone - a very relevant news event that was well worth noting and talking about and sharing opinions about. It is also my opinion that Bush is a liar. That is what this forum is for - stating opinions to talk about and posting (sometimes) interesting facts or news. I understand that it might be very embarrassing for all the folks who love and adore George Bush to have the fact that 500 Americans have been killed in a war based on lies (or gross incompetence, at minimum) be brought up. Oh well - follow the forum rules and you can post here. Don't read it if to you it is pointless or just a "troll".

Proving that he is a liar is going to be difficult. But I maintain the he is either a liar or an incredibly incompetent complete fucking moron of a puppet. Of course, a great many people (numbers growing) think he is BOTH.

One answer is checks and balances. It's the rules that we have, just like the rule that says the president can blow off the fillibuster with a recess appointment. Maybe they need to be changed, but they are what they are right now. I think the rules are there to prevent one party that temporarily has a slight edge from steamrolling an extreme agenda through, as if they had a mandate. If they have more than a slight edge, a super-majority, then they have much more power to do what they want - though they have to face the consequences in future elections. Why not give him a vote? Rules say they don't have to without a super majority of 60 votes. OK fuck the rules - why not, really? Well, enough Senators don't think he's qualified, is too extreme, racially insensitive or even bigoted, or they are just playing politics or some combination of all those things. If enough people believe that the Senators are mostly playing politics or are just clueless, then THEY will be held accountable in future elections. Checks and balances. It works the exact same way when the Democrats are in power. The only difference is that then the liberals become the ones who get pissed at the fillibusters and cheer on the recess appointments! Except those of impeccable principles. . . (like me - not!)

I don't know either. As much as I loved it, I will admit that it was a tad over-the-top. I think Terri probably did what I've been doing with Vincent - lowering myself somewhat to the same tactics of a bully. Doesn't make it right. . . but it is fun to turn the tables on someone, for all the good it does. . .

>How do you suppose Judge Pickering obtained the highest rating (well qualified) from the American Bar Assoc, the historically liberal organization that is deemed by Democrats to be irreplaceable in screening candidates for the bench? A good argument, a valid retort, something for the other side of the debate to consider (which I have). (LOOK VINCENT - this is how it is done! It really isn't that hard!) >How do you suppose he was unanimously confirmed to a district court position in 1990, when that congress was Democrat-controlled? Another valid point. Obviously the guy is not an idiot and he hasn't been caught using the N word or something absolutely conclusive like that. Hell - maybe he has changed and really is committed to equality and civil rights - or at least believes so in his own heart. But for me and many others, there is just too much evidence to the contrary. . . >The Dem party is so desperate that it has resorted to wielding its blunt demagogic weapons with increasing frequency and wantonness. One man's demagogic weapon is another man's constitutional right, even duty (just as it was and will be for conservatives) to keep too many of their "extremists" out of the courts, especially the higher ones. I don't know - the record of confirmations seems pretty high. Only 3 or 4 nominees have been blocked out of what, almost 200? Respectfully Yours, Gary

A lot of people believe that a big reason that there even IS a war is directly related to the incredible failures of the administration on domestic issues - jobs, deficit, the environment, the uninsured, funding for education, social programs etc. It is a somewhat cynical view, but I understand it. Blah blah deficits - 9-11! Blah blah social cuts - War On Terror! Blah blah 2,300,000 jobs lost - Weapons Mass Destruction! Blah blah civil liberties eroded - Defend the Country! Blah blah fuck the environment - Patriotism! If there wasn't a "war" to get folks rallying behind the pres, they might be paying attention to the immense failure (unless you are rich, religious, pro-life, or a logger/polluter) this administration has been.

Vincent, if you're not embarrassed, you should be. I've called bullshit on your tactics over and over, I've ridiculed you and taunted you and dared you to actually have the balls to debate fairly and address the facts I used to support my statements, refute them, or even argue your own (what a concept!) And still it hasn't happened (OK - a little, a VERY little). Again you say that it isn't worth your time. You refuse to play, so how can you lose? You just keep hammering away at the bad, bad bush-hater and his "vague, ridiculous sources" - insult, ridicule, huff and puff enough and he'll go away - you hope. I wrote a post about Charles Pickering, supported by a vast amount of evidence from MANY sources. In all your hundreds and hundreds of words of "response". . . VINCENT BY THE NUMBERS: Facts or arguments that Pickering is actually a good judge: ZERO Proving false ANY of the evidence presented: ZERO Comparisons to other, vaguely (at best) related subjects: MANY Labelings, insults, condescension, "you're just as bad", LMAOs, Smileys: COUNTLESS Me getting to put a bully who can't fight fair in his place: PRICELESS! I will give that you did take 2 (out of MANY) facts and at least argue that they were irrelevant, NOT FALSE. I disagree, but at least it was an actual argument! Good job Vincent! And regarding your amazing new tactic of challenging ME to prove that the evidence damns him as a racist ("or I'm not gonna play anymore! Wah!!!!"), I will repeat again, again, again: >On his record of unpublished reversals, let me say (again), ". . . I don't think it PROVES anything. I think it is another piece of evidence in a glaringly long list that seriously questions the man's commitment to racial equality and his fitness to serve." Let me add that for me, that list comes from far more places than just PFAW (see below). The point of a reasonable debate is not necessarily to PROVE something. It is to present opposing viewpoints and supporting evidence and to support your arguments while hopefully being open to others. At least that's what I thought. And regarding what the evidence means, I have read many dozens of editorial opinions and commentary from legal experts and historians and mainstream papers around the country (links in previous posts) that interpret the evidence the same way I do. Lastly - "Brave Sir Robin" and all the personal insults - it obviously amuses you immensely and makes you feel smart and powerful and in control. Good for you, Vincent - I don't know if you have a tiny dick or what, but you obviously have a great, great need to assert your supposed dominance since you attempt it so often. But in reality it is just more wasted time that could have been used researching and arguing the point at hand. Grow up, Vincent. Love and Kisses, Gary

Jesus H Christ - How gullible can people actually be??? Even Colin Powell will tell you that there is NO connection between Al Quada and Iraq. And it's not for any lack of trying. Try reading a paper once in a while, even watch Fox News!

Wow - real patriot, huh? I'm sure their mothers and fathers would really appreciate the sentiment. Of course, why should you be any different than our president, who seems to have the same attitude, based on his attendance of their funerals and forbidding of even pictures being taken of their coffins. Truly shameful.

If 500 Americans are killed in Afghanistan, or fighting the real war on terror, you won't find me saying a word, except perhaps "Thank you brave kids for defending this country making it safer". That was/is needed, this was NOT. Especially when we could have used the couple HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS on real homeland security or going after Al Quada or any number of other worthy causes that would really make us safer. . .