Is George W. Bush Clinically Insane?

[usmc1]

The Smirking Chimp asks:

Is George W. Bush Clinically Insane?
by Bill Gallagher | Nov 7 2006 - 7:47am |
— from the Niagara Falls Reporter (posted here with permission)

DETROIT -- His shrill voice pains sensitive ears. In the red states of the South and West, he ramps up his Texas twang as he brags on his war and hurls insults and lies about those who don't share his views. President George W. Bush says he's "pleased with the progress in Iraq," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is doing a "fantastic job," and those who support Democrats "want the terrorists to win."

Bush goes well beyond gutter rhetoric and the politics of desperation. He is a delusional madman and a disgrace to our national heritage. When young people hear the president of the United States talking as he does, it's no wonder their perception of politics and public life is so low.

The man who ran for the presidency claiming "I'm a uniter, not a divider" is one of the most divisive figures in American history and he will only get worse as his fiasco in Iraq continues to spiral into the abyss and the nation unravels.

Bush says, with mindless repetition, that we will "win the war," when the fact is, we are slogging it out in a conflict that screams for a political solution he is unwilling to confront as any reasonable leader would.

"Bring 'em on" is the emblem of Bush's sick mentality, as Iraqis and American troops spill their blood for his cowboy machismo.

"There is never a purely military solution to a guerrilla war," said Juan Cole, a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan, as I spoke with him last week at his Ann Arbor home.

"This is actually several unconventional wars," he argued, "and the only way they are ever resolved is through politics."

Cole, unlike Bush a thoughtful, well-informed realist, recognizes the futility of "staying the course" and using American troops for target practice for the increasingly deadly snipers popping up all over Iraq.

"It's a bitter pill to swallow," Cole said, "but if we are to see an end to this, eventually there are going to have to be negotiations with the Sunni Arab guerrilla groups that have blown up our troops. There are going to have to be negotiations with neighboring countries like Syria and Iran that have enormous amounts of pull in Iraq."

Cole finds Bush's lone-ranger military strategy a failure: "The idea that we can just unilaterally muscle our way through this is just a non-starter."

The Busheviks made the ugly congressional campaign a referendum on the "war on terrorism" and the importance of "victory" in Iraq. They smeared all those who question their war strategy, and pretended that only they have the resolve to make us "safe."

A New York Times editorial nailed it: "In Mr. Bush's world, there are only two kinds of Americans: those who are against terrorism, and those who somehow are right with it. Some Americans want to win in Iraq and some don't. There are Americans who support the troops and Americans who don't support the troops. And at the root of it all is the hideously damaging fantasy that there is a gulf between Americans who love their country and those who question his leadership."

Bush's fantasies are even disturbing his fans. In a sit-down with wire-service reporters, Bush assured them that Rumsfeld, the most incompetent man on earth, would keep his job for two more years. Maybe in the last days of the Republican-dominated Congress, Bush can get him declared Defense Secretary for Life, sort of an American Raul Castro.

Gushing over Rummy and Dick Cheney, the two principal thugs who lied to get us into Iraq and designed the disaster, Bush claimed they "are doing a fantastic job and I strongly support them."

The remark prompted conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan to raise the question of Bush's mental fitness. Sullivan told CNN Bush is so delusional, "this is not an election anymore, it's an intervention."

Sullivan, long a cheerleader for the war in Iraq, said Bush is "so in denial" he simply can't come to grips with his failure: "It's unhinged. It suggests this man has lost his mind. No one objectively could look at the way this war has been conducted, whether you were for it, as I was, or against it, and say that is has been done well. It's a disaster."

Sullivan added, "For him to say it's a fantastic job suggests the president has lost it. I'm sorry, there is no other way to say it."

The president's nanny corps -- his mother, his wife, State Department hands Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes -- know he's unhinged, but are too loyal to share that disturbing truth with the world. Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner tried to shift responsibility for the Iraq disaster away from Rumsfeld. Boehner quickly filled the disgraced Tom DeLay's shoes as the most loathsome member of Congress.

Boehner told CNN, "Let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld. But the fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge, and he works closely with them and the president."

Rummy, the notorious micromanager who second-guesses every move his commanders make, gets a free pass from that idiot, Boehner.

Before the invasion, Cole assessed the risks of invading Iraq for the University of Michigan's International Institute and he was part of a group of experts that advised the State Department on the risks. He believed that destroying secular Arab nationalism could drive Sunni Arabs toward al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism. Cole envisioned Shiites hooking up with ayatollahs in Iran, and the Kurds pushing toward their own state and causing tension with neighboring Turkey. Cole was spot-on, but the Bush administration ignored his warnings.

"The problems were foreseeable to anyone who knows the area," he said, "but I have to say, the full magnitude of the catastrophe boggles even my mind."

Cole fears the mess in Iraq "could get worse." He sees continued violence and instability in the Shiite south and the potential interruption of oil supplies making the "military more vulnerable." As the sectarian violence rages out of control, Cole argues that "this kind of situation is intractable" and "once it begins, once people are angry on a nationwide scale, once they are afraid, they're taking the law into their own hands."

Cole fears Sunnis and Shiites will continue "ethnically cleansing their neighborhoods" with U.S. forces caught in the middle and placed in even greater danger.

"We need a change in policy," he insisted. "I think our presence there is exacerbating the problems. And I think if we go on as we are, there is a real danger to British and U.S. troops being killed in very large numbers." That's what George W. Bush considers a "fantastic job."

Bush, the great born-again Christian who consulted Jesus with his war plans, is presiding over the death of Christianity in Iraq. Christian refugees are fleeing to Syria and Lebanon in vast numbers. Their churches are being burned, and their priests are being murdered. Iraq's one million Christians -- who have survived on that land for 2,000 years -- are in mortal peril. Bush's war has made that happen.

"There is a real prospect that at the end of this conflict, there simply won't be many in the way of Christians in Iraq," Cole predicted.

Father Jacob Yasso, the pastor of Detroit's Sacred Heart Church, shares that fear. His church is on Seven Mile Road in Detroit, an area often called Little Baghdad.

The Chaldeans are people noted in biblical times who settled in Mesopotamia long before the Arabs. Saint Thomas the Apostle brought the faith to them, and the Chaldeans have clung to their Catholicism ever since. They celebrate Mass in Aramaic, the language Christ spoke. Their liturgies are beautiful and reflect one of the most ancient expressions of Christian worship.

"We never felt as foreigners or strangers in Iraq," Father Yasso told me as we chatted in his office.

I've known the priest for years and interviewed him many times. He grew up in Baghdad and studied for the priesthood there and in Rome. He knows Saddam Hussein, and the former Iraqi dictator once gave Yasso $200,000 of government money to build a social center near his church.

In spite of Saddam's largess, Yasso was happy to see him toppled. At least at first. Chaldean and Assyrian Christians were tolerated in prewar Iraq. "How come before the invasion they were working together under Saddam? Why after the fall of that government things are changing?" he wondered.

The priest described an incident in Basra in which Shiite radicals attacked a Christian village: "They kidnapped a youngster, killed him and hanged him on a cross, telling him, 'All Christians will be killed like your Jesus.'"

In Mosul, a gang of men upset over the pope's remarks about Islam kidnapped Father Iskander Behnam. His severed head and limbs were found on top of his body.

Churches are burned, and bishops are fleeing. Christian refugees are living in misery.

I asked Yasso the obvious question, "Was it better under Saddam?"

Quickly and emphatically, he replied, "Much better, yes."

This is what Rumsfeld's "fantastic job" has done. George W. Bush and the Republicans who support the fiasco in Iraq must be held accountable.
_______
BILL GALLAGEHR

[nimrod]

Anyone who is not blinded by political fervor can see that the man is not right. I cannot say for sure what his particular malady is, but I feared for this country when he was <STRIKE>voted in</STRIKE> handed his position as president.

[Home Nudist]

Sullivan, long a cheerleader for the war in Iraq, said Bush is "so in denial" he simply can't come to grips with his failure: "It's unhinged. It suggests this man has lost his mind. No one objectively could look at the way this war has been conducted, whether you were for it, as I was, or against it, and say that is has been done well. It's a disaster."

The man is in denial, pure and simple. He can never admit he's wrong.

I am nonpartisan...... But what bothers me about his "stay the course" philosophy is that when 2000 of our Troops were dead, he said we were going to stay to give their sacrifice meaning. But, it's not as if the dying stops, and he can have his way and "save face." People keep dying -- every day we hear of more. What is the latest total, over 2800?

Spoiled rich kid who always had his way? Yes. Why doesn't he send his daughters over there if he has such a strong belief in what he is doing?


The man is unhinged -- and he's actually frightening!

[Pete Knight]

The view from this side of the pond is that Dubya has discredited the 'Office of the President of the United States of America', when ever US politics is shown on the news over here I keep thinking I'm watching a rerun of the Muppets!!

Do yourselves a favour, ditch the shrub, then we'll get rid of his lapdog Tony.

Pete Knight

[Nu]

Is this a proper topic on mid-term election day?

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Nu:
Is this a proper topic on mid-term election day?

Why do you ask? What is improper about it?

This election is as much a referendum on Bush as it is about anything. And Bush's sanity is an issue.

So, what is it that bothers you about the topic?

[Baron Lake]

Yup we should stick to the many specific impeachable offences the Shrub has committed. Although, I suppose suggesting there may be factors other than simple greed and stupidity which influence his behavior is a valid topic.
b.l.

[Baron Lake]

We're trying Pete.

I hope you will consider the benefits of a spay/neuter clinic before you turn him out on the streets.

b.l.

[Nu]

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nu:
Is this a proper topic on mid-term election day?
Why do you ask? What is improper about it?
Ths election is as much a referendum on Bush as it is about anything. And Bush's sanity is an issue.
So, what is it that bothers you about the topic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry, I should have indicated a bit more than just making the statement above.

George Bush is not on the ballot today.
Other people are.

However, reading the above poll and related commentary, could prejudice a voter to cast his/her vote away from a fine person, just because George Bush's name is mentioned.

[nacktman]

Take it from the psychological profession:

Yep, that there boy's as looney tunes as they's gets.

[Naturist Mark]

Is George W. Bush Clinically Insane?

Insane? hmmm ... not sure.
Mentally unstable ... beyond question. My guess - he suffers from Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome caused by years of alcoholism and exacerbated by cocaine abuse. The result is a progressive dementia that can include the following symptoms:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>- progressive loss of memory
- inability to concentrate
- decrease in problem-solving skills and judgement capability
- persistence in failed problem-solving modes, "staying the course" at all costs (perseveration)
- confusion
- hallucination, delusions
- altered sensation or perception
- impaired recognition (agnosia) of familiar objects or persons
- altered sleep patterns
- MOTOR SYSTEM IMPAIRMENT
-----gait changes
-----inappropriate movements
-----other impairments of motor system
- disorientation
- inability to generalize, learn, think abstractly, or perform calculations
- MEMORY DEFICIT
----- short term (can't remember new things)
----- long term (can't remember past) Persons with this may make up stories to cover up nothing but the memory lapse itself. (confabulation)
- IMPAIRED LANGUAGE ABILITY
----- inability to comprehend speech
----- inability to read (alexia)
----- inability to write (agraphia)
----- inability to find words (aphasiia)
----- inability to repeat a phrase
----- persistent repetition of phrases or words (Much has been made of President Bush's use of the word "fabulous.")
- PERSONALITY PROBLEMS
----- irritability
----- poor temper management
----- anxiety
----- depression
----- indecisiveness
----- self-centeredness
----- inflexibility
----- no observable mood (flat affect)
----- inappropriate mood or behavior
----- withdrawal from social interaction
----- inability to function in social or personal situations
----- lack of spontaneity [/list]

More here, including an incredible video documentation of Bush's declining mental faculties: How Ill is George W. Bush? (http://bluehorde.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-ill-is-george-w-bush.html)

-Mark

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Nu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nu:
Is this a proper topic on mid-term election day?
Why do you ask? What is improper about it?
Ths election is as much a referendum on Bush as it is about anything. And Bush's sanity is an issue.
So, what is it that bothers you about the topic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry, I should have indicated a bit more than just making the statement above.

George Bush is not on the ballot today.
Other people are.

However, reading the above poll and related commentary, could prejudice a voter to cast his/her vote away from a fine person, just because George Bush's name is mentioned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A cynic might reply that anyone identified with Bush to the extent that questions about Bush would cost that person a vote is demonstrably not a fine person.

[NudistGuy47]

Thank you Naturist Markk for posting the clinical definition of the maladies our President might suffer from due to his past lifestyle. The video opened my eyes.

Thank you also to usmc1 for posting the poll. I for one got a laugh as I read the choices. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

[naturalmanwa]

To answer the question, you must ask another. Who elected him?, and has he done the job they asked him to? He certainly does not appeal to the working class or the poor, so it leaves little doubt where the money came from to put him in office, and those people have made billions off of his election! I am not qualified to judge his mental condition, but the same question could be asked about many in office.

[Baron Lake]

Elected?
b.l.

[Charl]

Insane? No he is not clinically insane. Mentally Ill? Most certainly. Check out "Borderline Personality Disorder." Prisons are full of them... being rich has its benefits.

[Naturist Mark]

To answer the question, you must ask another. Who elected him?
Answer:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1004/101804usscjustices.jpg

[NakedGary]

I don't know, but now he is a lame duck!

[Steve Dallas]

Bush is not insane by my definition. However, he's a very proud, arrogant man who doesn't like to admit he's wrong about anything. He doesn't care if his refusal to admit he's wrong hurts other people. I believe he's one of those right wing people who believe they should be the natural leaders of the country; and one of those evangelicals who believe they are morally superior.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Steve Dallas:
Bush is not insane by my definition. However, he's a very proud, arrogant man who doesn't like to admit he's wrong about anything. He doesn't care if his refusal to admit he's wrong hurts other people. I believe he's one of those right wing people who believe they should be the natural leaders of the country; and one of those evangelicals who believe they are morally superior.

Steve your post is really very interesting because in your own insightful words you have rendered up an almost classical description of the sociopathical personality. Lack of empathy or having remorse for one's actions are also indicators.

Now, there are degrees of this personality disorder ranging from serial killers and mass-murderers to "my-way or the highway" type supervisors who manage through fear and intimidation.

But, obviously, all are destructive people who leave pain and unhappiness in their wake.

[nacktman]

By the way, by definition the shrub IS clinically insane.

Whatever the root cause, genetics, drug induced, etc., or a combination of issues is the wellspring of his insanity the shrub is insane ... and I do not mean the "a little out of touch with reality" kind (although he certainly is).

[Captain Curmudgeon]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

Insane? hmmm ... not sure.
Mentally unstable ... beyond question. My guess - he suffers from Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome caused by years of alcoholism and exacerbated by cocaine abuse.

Dang, beat me to it. I'm just back from Googling with a clipboard full of symptoms. Thought this for some time but when one week he says that the Republicans will hold the House and Senate and that Rumsfeld with stay until 2008 and the next week he says the Democrats have won the House and Senate and Rumsfeld is fired, you gotta think Korsakoff.

[hm0504]

'Bush Finally Wins Landslide ... As Nation's #1 Villain':
http://wonkette.com/

[NakedTao]

I've always felt that Bush was not fit for office. I felt that six years ago when I - and a majority of Americans - voted for Gore.

Part of why Dubya has been "successful," I think, is his completely unethical manipulation of people's feelings about, among other things, terror. Any sane person who holds public office should let his or her constituents to be well informed when entering the voting booth. This is clear proof that fear can be an effective - yet dangerous - motivator.

[smoothmike]

This might answer some questions....

[usmc1]

From Mossad's site:

Bush Poised to Stake His All on Iraq Victory

January 6, 2007, 9:39 PM (GMT+02:00)

Lt.Gen David Petraeus, new US commander in Iraq

President George W. Bush is poised to stake every US resource to hand on a no-holds-barred military operation all the way to victory in Iraq, after first bringing Baghdad under control. The chips should all be lined up by the time he goes public next week on his new strategy for Iraq and the Middle East at large.

DEBKAfile’s military and Washington sources report that the new Bush policy will brook no look-in for Iran, Syria or Hizballah in Iraq’s affairs. Exceptionally offensive US military resources have been marshaled to bar any interference with the White House’s plans for Iraq. They will under the hand of the military command for instantaneous responses. To this end, the shakeup of military leaders the US president set in motion over the weekend moves into forward position one of the toughest and most hawkish US military leaders.

Adm. William J. Fallon (picture), 62, hitherto supreme commander in the Pacific theater, takes over from Gen. John Abizaid as commander of the US central command which is in charge of the US fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan and against global terrorism. The admiral specializes in deploying large-scale navy, air and Marines forces simultaneously in different arenas.

And the White House is making sure that Adm. Fallon has plenty of resources to deploy, a veritable buildup, the second in four months, in the Persian Gulf and other waters opposite Iran. The USS John C. Stennis strike group is heading for the Persian Gulf with a mighty air arm of 9-10 fighter-bomber squadrons. Saturday, some sources reported that another task force, the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group, had been ordered out of Sand Diego on Jan. 4 and was heading in the same direction.

Military observers in the US and Middle East noted that the group’s commander, Rear Adm. Michael H. Miller, reiterated: “When we deploy for real-world operations, Carrier Strike Group 7 will be an example of how the Navy is able to carry out our mission any time, anywhere in the world.”

The original announcement that the Stennis strike group will this month join the USS Dwight Eisenhower aircraft carrier group and USS Boxer strike force in the Persian Gulf described the deployment “as a warning to Syria and Iran” in face of acts seen as provocative, and to give commanders more flexibility in the region.

Deployment of the Stennis group puts a total of 16,000 US sailors in the region as well as another nuclear carrier and 7 escort warships, 10 air squadrons, 2 submarines and helicopters to support amphibious landings on enemy soil.

This massed naval, air and marine forces assembled should provide credible evidence of the lengths the United States is prepared to go to keep Iran, Syria or Hizballah from interfering with the all-out American attempt to stabilize Iraq.

While the Stennis group has a high capability for sowing sea mines across broad stretches of water, thus threatening to disable the Iranian army and corking up its oil export outlets, the Ronald Reagan has the opposite and supplementary operational capability of sweeping up marine mines and explosive charges should Tehran blockade the Persian Gulf and Hormuz Strait against American warships and outgoing oil shipping from Iraq and Arabian oil centers.

DEBKAfile’s military sources foresee these frenzied preparations as spelling a turbulent winter and spring for the region - critical for Iraq and fraught with tension for the rest of the Middle East.

Israel might face extreme danger should Tehran and Damascus target the Jewish state in retaliation for US strikes. Israel is ruled by a volatile, shaky government; its military command under fire for its Lebanon War mistakes. Both may decided to take advantage of Israel’s low state. In fact US and Israeli military leaders do not rule out possible Iranian, Syrian or Hizballah assaults on the pretext that they are really aiming for US military installations in Israel. They may also direct their fire on American locations in Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and its fleet in the eastern Mediterranean.

President Bush’s willingness to go all the way in Iraq, say DEBKAfile sources in Washington, is prompted by a simple line of reasoning. If it ends in victory, he will end his presidency on a high note and be able to boast that American doggedness and courage prevailed over the enemy in the long haul. If the US armed forces fail to deliver, Bush will be in exactly the same position as he is today, namely, heading for the history books as the American president who lost the Iraq war and the struggle against terror.

He therefore has nothing to lose and everything to gain by staking his all on victory.

In pushing ahead in Iraq, the Gulf and the Middle East, Bush faces intense opposition from the Democratic majority which rules both houses of congress since they were lost to the Republicans last year over Iraq.

Democratic leaders Senate leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are urging the US president to reject US troop increases in Iraq and opt for redeployment. Turning them down would also reject the bipartisan spirit embodied in the Baker-Hamilton Iraqi Study Group report.

Using his powers as commander in chief, he continues to bolster the Iraqi front with another key appointment: Lt. Gen. David Petraeus will succeed Gen. George Casey in command of American forces in Iraq. Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne, the Screaming Eagles, in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Its motto, Rendezvous with Destiny, fits the US president’s present frame of mind.

The appointment of Ryan Crocker to replace Zamay Khalilzad as US ambassador to Baghdad further supplements the all-or-nothing scenario. Crocker led the US campaign in the Indian subcontinent against al Qaeda and Taliban. Khalilzad moves over to head the US mission at the United Nations.

My editorial comment, is this the behavior of a sane person?

[Naturist Mark]

President Bush’s willingness to go all the way in Iraq is prompted by a simple line of reasoning. If it ends in victory, he will end his presidency on a high note ... If the US armed forces fail to deliver, Bush will be in exactly the same position as he is today ...

He therefore has nothing to lose and everything to gain by staking his all on victory.

Ummmm ... what about the servicemen who will be sacrificed for Bush's ego? Does no one is this abomination of an administration speak for them?

Did I say it was about W's ego? To be fair it is also about this (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece). A new 30 year commitment to share Iraqi oil with US and UK oil companies on incredibly favorable terms - for the oil companies, far better than any other OPEC nation allows. All guaranteed by US troops. For 30 years. Which is why we have PERMANENT bases in Iraq, and why Haliburton, Exxon and the rest won't let us leave.

Remember when we were assured it wasn't about oil? LOL, well it wasn't about cheap oil, it was, is and always has been about huge oil company profits.

3014 American servicemen and women dead for oil profits. What will the history books say about that?

-Mark

[hm0504]

Geez, you guys are so negative. I'm sure this time when American forces re-invade Iraq, they'll be greeted as liberators!

[smoothmike]

Geez, you guys are so negative. I'm sure this time when American forces re-invade Iraq, they'll be greeted as liberators!


Albinus


While it may all sound negative, and i too think it is, the bottom line is that there are and have been countless sacrifice for no reason other than that of the people in the hierarchy of society(oil companies, government and the like). Yes Saddam was a tyrant and yes, as we are lead to believe terrorists are trying to take over the world, many dont know that U.S. soldiers were killed using American weapons and it is no secret that the Bush government snr has had a long standing economical relationship with the very people they call terrorists.

I have little faith in much of what i hear from government after hearing the types of things my own government had done to my family in the past during the long repressive apartheid and the same goes for my own personal indigenous friends in Australia and their families and ancestors. Like myself they still, today carry the slave names that were given to them.

[sdson]

Hi Mark,

Well said. Unfortunately, based on the fact that he's still in office after the lies and carnage I believe history will probably portray him as a great president who liberated Iraq.

Re-institute the draft and you'll see how fast we pull out of Iraq. Most American's don't care about anyone but themselves. When it personally affects them, change happens.
As long as our armed forces are drawn from the current "volunteer" army and ALL young people are not at risk, no one seems to care.

I am amazed on a daily basis at the number of people who still support this guy. It's astounding that his is not accountable for any of his actions and that he is still in office.


Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">President Bush’s willingness to go all the way in Iraq is prompted by a simple line of reasoning. If it ends in victory, he will end his presidency on a high note ... If the US armed forces fail to deliver, Bush will be in exactly the same position as he is today ...

He therefore has nothing to lose and everything to gain by staking his all on victory.

Ummmm ... what about the servicemen who will be sacrificed for Bush's ego? Does no one is this abomination of an administration speak for them?

Did I say it was about W's ego? To be fair it is also about this (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece). A new 30 year commitment to share Iraqi oil with US and UK oil companies on incredibly favorable terms - for the oil companies, far better than any other OPEC nation allows. All guaranteed by US troops. For 30 years. Which is why we have PERMANENT bases in Iraq, and why Haliburton, Exxon and the rest won't let us leave.

Remember when we were assured it wasn't about oil? LOL, well it wasn't about cheap oil, it was, is and always has been about huge oil company profits.

3014 American servicemen and women dead for oil profits. What will the history books say about that?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[nacktman]

If any doubt as to the affirmative in response to this thread's title and opening question lingered in anyone's mind, it was erased in last night's State of the Union address; when the shrub doggedly insisted on continuing as he was in all things - especially Iraq.

One of the basic defining points of insnity is 'doing the smae things over and over and over again expecting different results'.
That is exactly what we heard from the inarticulate nimrod last night.

[usmc1]

What struck me is that the guy did not even appear as though he beleived any of what he was saying. It rang hollow, like someone just going through the motions.

That can mean he's given up, or it can mean he is going to proceed as he did in getting us into Iraq. Without a thought to the consequence and with barely a nod to the Constitution. Embracing reality is not this guy's strong suit.

By the way, it appears that his definition of bipartisan is that "we work together doing what it is that I want to do, the way I want to do it".

We have dire and scary two more years of this. The worst case would be if he were to get another major hit on our soil and he takes that as justification for suspension of civl liberties, trials and elections and use his hand-picked generals to enforce such fiats.

Just remember, that while the "unification" debate has left this board, the philosophy behind it remains.

It will take another horrific event in order to mobilize the masses, but we saw how mindlessly reactive we became after 9/11---some of us.

[Naturist Mark]

Thom Hartmann made a spooky observation about the SOTU address that sounds like a joke, but isn't: Every time Dick Cheney took a sip of water during the speech, Bush stopped speaking.

A lot of people noticed that they both took drinks in unison ... perhaps drink breaks were indicated on the teleprompter.

-Mark

[gymnasthorse]

I voted for him and I would again.

[barenaked1]

If you haven't watched the movie 'American Dreamz', please do so. It certainly mirrors what is going on at the House of George. William Dafoe does a great Cheney!

[Big-Thinker]

Just a point on Bush's "never admitting he is wrong" issue. There seem to be 2 types of leaders, one always apologizes and does admit when he/she is wrong & maybe even apologizes for things they weren't even guilty of. The other type stands strong and hardly ever admits when they are wrong.

I say these two types exist because there are two types of people. About half of people respect/follow/admire one type while the other half chooses the other type of leader. I actually think a little more than half wants not to hear their leader apologize. I've realized that most people are not interested in the complexities and disturbing facts of reality. They want simple, clear answers at the expense of accuracy. Most people expect leaders to be perfect and will lose all respect for the leader that admits, however genuinely, that he is wrong. We know that Bush is one type and Clinton was the other. I guess I see him never admitting he is wrong as just a leadership style that he considers necessary, due to the psychology of the people.

[nacktman]

Naw, he jus' crazy as a bed bug s'all!

[usmc1]

Originally posted by gymnasthorse:
I voted for him and I would again.

Yeah and there are those who still smoke, drive without seatbelts fastened, eat McDonald's french fries, run red lights, have sex with strangers without benefit of condoms, reply to e-mails asking for assistance in getting a fortune out of Nigeria, and ride motorcyles without wearing a helmet.

[missouriboy]

Impeach Bush—Stop Attack On Iran
By Paul Craig Roberts

When are the American people and their representatives in Congress and the military going to wake up and realize that the US has an insane war criminal in the White House who is destroying all chances for peace in the world and establishing a police state in the US?

Full article. (http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070114_bush.htm)

[nacktman]

Interesting piece, MoBoy.

[nekkidincville]

he DID NOT ESCAPE... they gave him a DAYPASS http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smash.gif

[usmc1]

Originally posted by missouriboy:
Impeach Bush—Stop Attack On Iran
By Paul Craig Roberts

When are the American people and their representatives in Congress and the military going to wake up and realize that the US has an insane war criminal in the White House who is destroying all chances for peace in the world and establishing a police state in the US?

Full article. (http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070114_bush.htm)

MoBoy, there's hope for you yet!

[gymnasthorse]

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gymnasthorse:
I voted for him and I would again.

Yeah and there are those who still smoke, drive without seatbelts fastened, eat McDonald's french fries, run red lights, have sex with strangers without benefit of condoms, reply to e-mails asking for assistance in getting a fortune out of Nigeria, and ride motorcyles without wearing a helmet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... Lets see... I've never smoked, I can't drive, and I ALWAYS wear my seat belt. I NEVER eat fast food! Yuck!!! Never had sex. Yup still a vergin! Nigeria I don't know what your talking about... And I've never ridden motercycle, I don't don't even ride my bike with out a helmet!!! So you must not be talking to me!! If you are then get you brain check at the door, please!

[Boreas]

gymnasthorse, why on earth would you vote for GWB again? (if he had the opportunity)

What do you see as his good qualities?

I had a hard time understanding why people voted for him the first time. Now I am even more perplexed.

[usmc1]

gymnasthorse

Yeah, but you do boast of voting for that dry-drunk little sociopath currently haunting the White House. So, yeah, I was writing in your direction.

But, since you're so green that you've never gotten one of those infamous "help me get my fortune out of Nigeria e-mails", perhaps naivete is your problem.

As to your virginity, gosh I'm sorry!

[Big-Thinker]

I'm voting for McCain next round, provided he makes the nomination and all that. That is, unless someone even better steps up.

And hey, on the virginity thing, its to be admired. I don't know how old she is, but for both genders, there is value in waiting. I've seen enough to postulate that people who wait until their 20's have an IQ boost. I haven't seen a study, but it seems clear from my observations. And that's not even going into how important waiting can be within the realistic dynamics of life. I was a virgin until 21, and while I guess it wasn't really by choice - and I did feel "left out", I think I'm better off (that is was not years before). Guess I'm getting off topic... just had to interject that!

[nacktman]

Ok, I'll be the spelling Nazi here and point out that 'virgin' is spelled with two "I's" not an "I and an E" and that 'motorcycle' is spelled with two "O's" instead of an "O and an E" ... naivete might not be the problem there.
It sounds like the 'back of the short bus' rider to me.

[K and C]

This is what makes America great, The ability to vote for who you want regardless of others opinions. I love this country.

[gymnasthorse]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Ok, I'll be the spelling Nazi here and point out that 'virgin' is spelled with two "I's" not an "I and an E" and that 'motorcycle' is spelled with two "O's" instead of an "O and an E" ... naivete might not be the problem there.
It sounds like the 'back of the short bus' rider to me.

So I have dislexia. So SUE ME!!!!!!!! You people are the meanest group of DomoCRAPS I've ever met!

[Boreas]

Originally posted by gymnasthorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Ok, I'll be the spelling Nazi here and point out that 'virgin' is spelled with two "I's" not an "I and an E" and that 'motorcycle' is spelled with two "O's" instead of an "O and an E" ... naivete might not be the problem there.
It sounds like the 'back of the short bus' rider to me.

So I have dislexia. So SUE ME!!!!!!!! You people are the meanest group of DomoCRAPS I've ever met! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One person comments about your spelling and everyone is mean "DomoCRAPS"?

That is mature.

So, what DO you like about Mr. G.W.Bush? For the record, even though I don't like the man, I would give him respect if I met him. It is his right as a human being, and as president. Heck, I would even give Stephen Harper respect for similar reasons. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif

[nacktman]

That's Dyslexia by the way.

[LeoNJ]

Is Bush insane well that is not for me to decide. Is he a good president in all honesty, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Do I support our troops. Yes but not the policy or the war that is being fought.

I have a lot to fear if things continue and we are forced into another war and that is the possiblility of a draft. Although I would be immune from it, my sons may not be so lucky they are young teenagers, and only a few years away from being 18. I personaly do not feel that we continue on the path that has been laid out by Bush things must change and since this government is suppose to be a representive of the people then the people should be telling Congress to take action and get Bush out before he does more damage to this nation and democracy. So in part everyone reading this please contact you representives in Congress & the Senete and plead with them to start impeachment proceding with Bush & Cheney and removed them from power before it is to late. In all reality Cheney should not have be VP. It is on record that Cheney orginal residentcy was in Texas the same state as Bush and by law he was not allowed to be VP but do to a loophole he and early notice he setup a home in another state maintained that home applied to voter registration and a drivers license to establish residentcy there at at the same time continued to live his original home in Texas on a part time basis but since he had established himself as a resident of the other state he was able to quailfy for the position. This is just a small drop in all the underhanded things Bush and his people have done to be in office. But we as the pople have the right to say get out your are a disgrace to this nation.

So who is willing to help start a petition drive to remove Bush & Cheney from Office?

LeoNJ

[nacktman]

Stiil_Boreas, I'm not so sure giving the shrub respect as a human being is warranted, evidence in his life leads to not rather than to do.

He has so utterly disgraced the office he stole that to give him respect due that office would be insane.

[EricNY]

Lets play nice Kids....I see flickers of flames here starting

gymnasthorse...Do not take it too personally...these are actually nice people...I know hard to believe, but its true!

When you jump in on a political thread...Keep your dukes up...it can get hot in here http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Sanslines]

gymnasthorse...Do not take it too personally...these are actually nice people...I know hard to believe, but its true!

ERC,

C'mon now. Nice people behave in a nice and respectful manner no matter what another person's opinion is. You must be seeing something entirely different then what the majority of what people see here.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">gymnasthorse...Do not take it too personally...these are actually nice people...I know hard to believe, but its true!

ERC,

C'mon now. Nice people behave in a nice and respectful manner no matter what another person's opinion is. You must be seeing something entirely different then what the majority of what people see here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

C'mon Sansline, we are too nice people. And kindly explain to me what the phrase "what the majority of what people see here" means?

But, you're wrong. Nice people can remain nice people even if they sound-off against idiocy.

[nacktman]

ercNy, no flames here -- not even a smoldering ember. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif
Just the standard "he called me a ... " response from those that can not recognize the difference between reality and fantasy ... thinking (ok, not thinking), that to point out the error of their ideas is attacking them personally, especially when one uses sarcasm and droll humor -- it really confuses them. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/goofy.gif

You very well know I don't give a care to proper spelling, but with the inanity and shear stupidity of the idea expressed, noting the spelling errors was the easiest way to put the idea expressed in its proper perspective. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif
Everyone knows (or should), that if you leave an opening big enough for a Semi to be driven through, eventually it will be. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif
Besides, it is so easy to drive those Big Rigs through the holes of those that express ideas of similar vein; it would be remiss to not do so -- we could form a convoy. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif


The shrub would have been institutionalized many years ago if not for grandaddy's money keeping the commitment papers away.
Again, MoBoy, nice piece ... as another said there's hope, yet! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif

[gymnasthorse]

Originally posted by nacktman:
That's Dyslexia by the way.

Yeah, Go jump in a lake!

I think gymnasthorse is a young person. Gymnast, are you in high school? I see you like gymnastics and soccer. Do you work with a team?

Allie

[Big-Thinker]

Yeah, and it takes a big man to pick on a young woman. Where I'm from we wouldn't call that much of a man. These habitually hostile attitudes can really hurt someone not used to it, and this is not the sort of atmosphere to welcome someone new to the forums. Well, I guess at least you've only reinforced her impressions of your political party.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by AlexisDanielle:
I think gymnasthorse is a young person. Gymnast, are you in high school? I see you like gymnastics and soccer. Do you work with a team?

Allie

Err, Allie at least right at 23, maybe 24 or more, from the claim of having voted for Bush.

That would have been November of '04, and tis now '07.

Certainly old enough to have gotten a clue or two!

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Big-Thinker:
Yeah, and it takes a big man to pick on a young woman. Where I'm from we wouldn't call that much of a man. These habitually hostile attitudes can really hurt someone not used to it, and this is not the sort of atmosphere to welcome someone new to the forums. Well, I guess at least you've only reinforced her impressions of your political party.

Hey, you jump in the pool, regardless your age or gender, you're gonna get wet! If one can't sswim, one should stay out of the deep end!

[Sanslines]

C'mon Sansline, we are too nice people. And kindly explain to me what the phrase "what the majority of what people see here" means?

But, you're wrong. Nice people can remain nice people even if they sound-off against idiocy.

Let me start my reply with a quote that I majestically saw hanging above the entrance to a university library:

"Illusions are the truth we live by until we know better" Nancy Gibbs

Judging by the replies here, there sure are a whole bunch of illusions floating around.

Now back to the topic at hand. You guys (and you fully well know who you are) are acting like bullies who are picking on gymnasthorse. Just because you don't agree with his opinions doesn't give you the right to mock him. You don't know him and everyone makes spelling mistakes. Just because you don't like his reply does not give you guys the right to gang up on him and drive him off this forum. Nice people don't bully others. Bullies are basically cowards inside who get some kind of perverted pleasure by picking on the weaker members of our society. That is until eventually someone better, stronger, more intelligent, more powerful comes along and gives them a taste of their own medicine. Remember, what goes around comes around and if you bully anyone in real life you might evetually find yourself flat on your *** some day.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Stiil_Boreas, I'm not so sure giving the shrub respect as a human being is warranted, evidence in his life leads to not rather than to do.

He has so utterly disgraced the office he stole that to give him respect due that office would be insane.

I share Still_Boreas' sentiment re, if meeting President Bush or even, ugh, Cheney, I would be respectful. Couple of reasons for that. One, I think one should aim to be as respectful as possible of others even those whose actions one strongly detests. Secondly, in the case of Bush and Cheney, there is also the Office that they represent (no matter how much I may think that they are a disgrace to it).

[Big-Thinker]

There is a line where you go from disagreeing and discussion to bullying. Maybe I even crossed that myself. I must admit I have an old fashion streak (no pun intended on "streak") and may have extra consideration for a woman (gymnasthorse is a female, according to her profile, Sanslines) who seems, at first glance at least, to be something rare, special and virtuous - something many people no longer understand nor appreciate.

On the bully note - just a funny story... when I moved to a new school in fourth grade, I started a "gang" with some new friends. Our "mission" was to defend the picked-on and fight the playground bullies. I got some injuries, black eyes, etc. over the next couple years, but it seemed all worth it at the time.

On the presidential respect issue...
Well, at least that is one thing some of us can agree on... respect for leaders regardless of party. Although I vote Republican, I thought it horrible (and embarrassing to the international community) that Clinton was thrown into a hell for the Lewensky scandal, when the president of this nation should not be distracted by such things. It was a personal mistake and should have been considered a personal issue, between him and his wife. If someone is the leader, they need to be respected as the leader. Although I disagreed with many of his political philosphies, I respected him as president and commander in chief when I was in the military. Of course if we'd all vote for McCain next election, we'd have someone very worthy of all this respect.

[Sanslines]

(gymnasthorse is a female, according to her profile, Sanslines)

My apologies for the gender mistake.

[Boreas]

at first glance at least, to be something rare, special and virtuous - something liberals don't understand nor appreciate.

This type of statement always bothers me. Since when did being liberal mean that a person has no morals or understanding? Perhaps things are different on your side of the Canada-US border. In my world, having good morals, understanding or other "apple pie" qualities are not limited to or exclusive of labels such as "conservative" or "liberal".

[Big-Thinker]

You're right. That's was an unfair stereotype. I edited my post to read "many people".

Speaking of stereotypes, I was surprised to see a survey data on Cheef.com a couple years ago to find that nudists were about 50/50 Republican/Democrat. In fact, if I remember right, slightly more than 50% were Republicans.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">at first glance at least, to be something rare, special and virtuous - something liberals don't understand nor appreciate.

This type of statement always bothers me. Since when did being liberal mean that a person has no morals or understanding? Perhaps things are different on your side of the Canada-US border. In my world, having good morals, understanding or other "apple pie" qualities are not limited to or exclusive of labels such as "conservative" or "liberal". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And let me add this. I've been around the campus long enough not to accept things at first glance or on face value. This person may indeed be precisely as he/she presents his/her self.

But, a female icon does not always mean the poster is a female, there's a lot of assumptions being made in that regard that may or may not be true. Also men can remain "virgin" as can women. So again, some assumptions are being made.

Also, I am not entirely convinced that this person is not a former Southern CA, troll who got bounced who is now using a new IP and screen name.

And finally, as I said before, this particular thread is very politcal and volatile and surely someone old enough to find their way to this forum, and old enough, as claimed, to vote for Bush, is old enough to handle the heat coming their way when they boast of that particular fact.

I do find the handwringing of the goo-goo, sob-sisters over every perceived ill-mannered response to this person a bit tiresome and silly.

As to liberals defending themselves, we have nothing to defend except perhaps we waited a tad too long to fight back with the same no-quarter nastiness as the conservatoids.

But that is history, and it's a whole brand new game!

[Unwired]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(gymnasthorse is a female, according to her profile, Sanslines)

My apologies for the gender mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may not be a mistake. When the user in question originally signed up to the forums, they purported to be "23 M" in search of female nudists to hang out with.

usmc1 is absolutely right: things are not always as they seem, and anyone who's been around here long enough knows it's not unheard of for someone to pretend to be someone they're not in order to get extra attention.



UW

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(gymnasthorse is a female, according to her profile, Sanslines)

My apologies for the gender mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may not be a mistake. When the user in question originally signed up to the forums, they purported to be "23 M" in search of female nudists to hang out with.

usmc1 is absolutely right: things are not always as they seem, and anyone who's been around here long enough knows it's not unheard of for someone to pretend to be someone they're not in order to get extra attention.



UW </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretending to be someone else is very common all over the net. However, is this a proper justification to bully someone? Heated debates are one thing but belittling someone is another issue. Don't you think new people deserve some consideration here? I still strongly believe in the saying what goes around comes around. Isn't it time that those who claim to be decent and compassionate acutally start behaving that way? Hypocrisy is still alive and well.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by Sanslines:

Pretending to be someone else is very common all over the net. However, is this a proper justification to bully someone?

Of course it isn't, and I wasn't attempting to imply that it was. I was merely pointing out that the person you and others are expressing sympathy for may not be exactly as he or she presents him- or herself. My hope is that whatever consideration is extended to someone would not be based solely on their age or gender.



UW

[Sanslines]

As to liberals defending themselves, we have nothing to defend except perhaps we waited a tad too long to fight back with the same no-quarter nastiness as the conservatoids.

No party affiliation has a monopoly on either civility or incivility. The problem with some here is that they are so full of anger and hatred that they take their frustrations out on individuals who only take an opposing position. If some really feel that coming to a forum and abusing people who don't whole heartedly agree with their philosophies is productive, then perhaps they need to spend more time in the real world with real people. Perhaps they also need to attend anger management courses. This attitude of fighting nastiness with nastiness in this forum is a fantasy as there are only a few who are nasty no matter what kind of response they receive.

[Sanslines]

I was merely pointing out that the person you and others are expressing sympathy for may not be exactly as he or she presents him- or herself. My hope is that whatever consideration is extended to someone would not be based solely on their age or gender.

Point taken. My point is merely that when someone is expressing an unpopular opinion but remains civil, then that person should be treated with civility. Ganging up on a person because you don't like what they are saying reminds me of days of roaming school yard bullies. EVERYONE in life deserves to be treated with basic human decency, respect, and compassion. It does not matter what age, gender, social status in life, amount of money, whether homeless or not, physical or mental condition.

[usmc1]

You know what sanslines, I'd like for you to go back and read what was written. Particularly if any of what you've just put up refers to me.

In capsule, this person came in to this thread, which is obviouslu volatile and political, boasting of voting for Bush and stating that they would do it again. That was a challenging statement.

I responded with a certain amount of light-heartedness and levity, (maybe not as clever as I could have been) and compared that to those who still smoke, eat MacDonald's fries and so forth. But hardly bullying.

That was answered with the statement that I needed to get a brain check at the door. Fine, I thought, now I know what I'm dealing with.

The levity left the repartee.

Another poster, in a most cordial and courteous manner, inquired as to what qualities the person liked about Bush. That post was never answered, but the person in question found time to refer to "Democraps", and etc.

So, I just have to tell you and et ux, that your overwrought sensibilites are misplaced. No one has bullied this person, we've merely responded in kind to what was an obvious troll by someone who is obviously not on the up and up.

[Boreas]

You're right. That's was an unfair stereotype. I edited my post to read "many people".

Thanks Big Thinker.

Another poster, in a most cordial and courteous manner, inquired as to what qualities the person liked about Bush. That post was never answered, but the person in question found time to refer to "Democraps", and etc.


Interesting observation. Of course, I noticed that too. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

One thing that has disturbed me about the Bush era is the lack of ability to ask questions without being seen as Bush Bashing or whatever. I have gotten myself into some sticky messes asking questions about what people like about Bush (before I realized how the terms "conservatives" and "liberals" were used down there) I now try to be much more cautious and careful about how I ask such questions. That is, if I ask at all. I have though, learned a lot!

I hope that we can enter into an era where there CAN be dialogue between the two "sides". We have to be able to build bridges between cultures, whether they be political or ethnic or whatever.

[gymnasthorse]

OK let me put a stop to all this gossup about me... My REAL name is Rebekah, meaning YES I AM A WOMAN!!!! I am 23. AND I live in social rehab. IN the Bay Aria, CA, USA. I have high funchining autsim, Bipoler, Self Hatered, OCD, to name a few. I have been in the "lock" unit at the hospitle I can't even count. I have tryed to kill my self more than you want to know and I want to think. Nudism WAS my first look in to a world were people nice, polite, didn't lable and I felt like a humen for the very first time. NOW I feel bullyed, depressed, sad, and rejected- like I did by the outside world.... The only reason I am even writing this is that maybe one of you will under stand... Maybe not.... Sorry for this miss spells. I never could read until I was 12 year old. Sorry.

[nacktman]

Wondered about the non-answered query myself?!

gymnasthorse, no need to feel bullied or picked on. You jumped in with both feet and the water was hot, ok, a mite too hot for you but not to the point of any bullying.

As to your disclosing post above I for one had pretty much figured most of that out all ready ... with all those years working in the Mental Health field as a Psychologist, I did pick up a few clues about how to "read" others, you know.
None of that means a hill of beans as to responses to the ideas you expressed.
You have no need to apologize for the misspellings, we all misspell words at times. And if you read the responses about misspellings and think as opposed to react, you'd see the humor behind them.

The shrub is insane and will be locked away. It should be sooner than later.

And for all the handwringers out there ... as our buddies from across the pond would say, Piss off!

[gymnasthorse]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Wondered about the non-answered query myself?!

gymnasthorse, no need to feel bullied or picked on. You jumped in with both feet and the water was hot, ok, a mite too hot for you but not to the point of any bullying.

As to your disclosing post above I for one had pretty much figured most of that out all ready ... with all those years working in the Mental Health field as a Psychologist, I did pick up a few clues about how to "read" others, you know.
None of that means a hill of beans as to responses to the ideas you expressed.
You have no need to apologize for the misspellings, we all misspell words at times. And if you read the responses about misspellings and think as opposed to react, you'd see the humor behind them.

The shrub is insane and will be locked away. It should be sooner than later.

And for all the handwringers out there ... as our buddies from across the pond would say, Piss off!

Thanks Nacktman! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Sanslines]

So, I just have to tell you and et ux, that your overwrought sensibilites are misplaced. No one has bullied this person, we've merely responded in kind to what was an obvious troll by someone who is obviously not on the up and up.

She has now responded. Do you still feel that she is a troll? Now don't you and the other nazi spelling nemesis feel like fools?

[Sanslines]

The only reason I am even writing this is that maybe one of you will under stand... Maybe not.... Sorry for this miss spells. I never could read until I was 12 year old. Sorry.

Yes, some of us do understand. That's why some of us speak out against bullies and nastiness.

[Sanslines]

I hope that we can enter into an era where there CAN be dialogue between the two "sides". We have to be able to build bridges between cultures, whether they be political or ethnic or whatever.

This certainly will never happen in this forum. Political discussion usualy get very heated in real life. The country is divided. The sad thing from this forum is the tremendous misuse of the word 'liberal'. Liberal means open minded, compassionate, and accepting. Based on some replies, some individuals who claim to be liberals are actually the exact opposite. They mirror the worst qualities of the so called neo cons and will always continue to deny that they do. There is no discussion, debate, conversation, etc with anyone who is not intelligent, civil, or mature enough to understand that political conversations are subjective conversations. Everyone feels that their opinion is the right opinion. Unfortunately, some extremests within this camp take this step further by abusing others who express opinions that don't fit within their narrow minded molds. They call those who disagree with them idiots, insane, and resort to other assorted childish games. No wonder they confine themselves to a forum. No self respecting person in real life would ever tolerate being called an idiot for expressing their own personal view. If you wonder why so few post to topics such as this, I believe that unfortunately many have given up. Most people come to the forum to relax. Most are not sadomasochists who come for abuse by others. Ask yourself this question: Why should anyone post a contrary view when they will clearly be ganged up upon and driven away from the topic? It's just plain very sad that so many feel that they can not openlyexpress their opinions without bullying. Topics such as this suffer for it, the forum suffers for it, and those interested in open debate are best advised to find another outlet to express their opinions.

Sanslines, you hit the nail square on with your post. Very well stated about how it is to be a poster who doesn't think like the ring-leading bullies who control these political threads. Their postings are anything but liberal but extreme one-sided, closed-minded posts which are laced with belittling statements and written in condescending tones.

You would think that some of these so-called "professionals" would be able to debate an issue reasonably without resorting to outbursts or name calling. Rather than engage posters in a good dialogue with the exchanging of differing opinions and finding out more on how each other thinks about a particular issue we have posters putting other posters of an opposing thought on the defense.

What we have here are radical extremists who want the forum's world to know their opinions --written on screen as if in stone as if their way of thinking is the right and true way. If you don't agree, well look out, the mud starts to sling.

I have read your posts and find you truly try to engage civility in debate but without any results other than being ganged up on by the select few who control the threads. Like I said many posts earlier, they are like a wolfpack who come together to circle their prey. The end results is that most posters just quit posting. Maybe that is their goal to remove posters who have differing opinions and dominate the thread espousing their views only.

It is sad as the forum is a great way for good dialogue on various topics. The other threads when certain ones are not involved do have good dialogue and sharing of thoughts.

Allie

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, I just have to tell you and et ux, that your overwrought sensibilites are misplaced. No one has bullied this person, we've merely responded in kind to what was an obvious troll by someone who is obviously not on the up and up.

She has now responded. Do you still feel that she is a troll? Now don't you and the other nazi spelling nemesis feel like fools? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not even a little bit! I stand by everything I said. And despite the poster's self-described limitations, it did not prevent her from going on the attack from the git-go.

Besides, for several reasons, I ain't buying what he/she's selling. My jungle-bunny, something ain't right up ahead Major, meter is clicking away big time.

But while we're in this criticizing mode, Sanslines, would you please figure out how to paragraph things you post.

And, I personally, would take it as an act of self-enlightment on your part if you would kindly stop posting things about what "most" here feel, think, or come to the forum for--speak for yourself. OK?

[nacktman]

Yes, some of us understand.
Obviously, some don't, else they would recognize that those that do understand are the ones speaking out against bullies and nastiness.
Because one is not of the wingnut perversion does not allow those that are to be the bullies and the most nastiest and then accuse all others of their actions ... something many have noted and posted about before.
When anyone stands up to say the wingnuts are wrong the wingnuts immediately begin to howl, screech, and caterwaul about being picked on and accuse any who have an opinion of their own other than the dogma of the neo-con as being unAmerican and calling for them to be silenced.
Being the bullies and nasty ones they are the wingnuts think all are as they are and as they cannot grasp reality and try to shout out, with obfuscations, outright lies, half-truths all who stand up to say what they don't want to hear ... or anyone else to hear either.
As to the statement about no one would tolerate being called an idiot in person for expressing their 'personal' ideas ... 'someone' needs to get a grip, it happens everyday ... 'someone' has never had a job, been in a live forum or even in the grocery store check out line if they believe that load of horse-hockey.

Still_Boreas discussions between the two 'sides' can and does occur although with the wingnuts polluting the water and air it's hard to tell sometime. Those of us (the majority, that is) of the Center tend to agree with those of the Left most of the time ... a look at the last elections will show that, that and a goodly number of the right agreed with the left as well ... and that is what gets the goat of the wingnuts.

It has been a while since the last elections and the wingnuts have been silent for the most part. Now it appears that they are beginning to crawl out from under their rocks again. While it has been a kinder and gentler world amid their silence none have demanded their silence instead we have enjoyed the warmer days of the winter ... I find it a bit funny that when the bullying and nastiness of the wingnuts began to rear its ugly head again the really cold days began this winter, could there be a connection there?

The original question of this thread asked if the shrub was clinically insane and the answer is a resounding yes -- by any definition of insanity, he is insane

[Sanslines]

And, I personally, would take it as an act of self-enlightment on your part if you would kindly stop posting things about what "most" here feel, think, or come to the forum for--speak for yourself. OK?

I do and I did as well as Allie. Other posters might not even want to waste their time by posting a reply. Perhaps we should take a poll and find out.

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by AlexisDanielle:
Sanslines, you hit the nail square on with your post. Very well stated about how it is to be a poster who doesn't think like the ring-leading bullies who control these political threads. Their postings are anything but liberal but extreme one-sided, closed-minded posts which are laced with belittling statements and written in condescending tones.

You would think that some of these so-called "professionals" would be able to debate an issue reasonably without resorting to outbursts or name calling. Rather than engage posters in a good dialogue with the exchanging of differing opinions and finding out more on how each other thinks about a particular issue we have posters putting other posters of an opposing thought on the defense.

What we have here are radical extremists who want the forum's world to know their opinions --written on screen as if in stone as if their way of thinking is the right and true way. If you don't agree, well look out, the mud starts to sling.

I have read your posts and find you truly try to engage civility in debate but without any results other than being ganged up on by the select few who control the threads. Like I said many posts earlier, they are like a wolfpack who come together to circle their prey. The end results is that most posters just quit posting. Maybe that is their goal to remove posters who have differing opinions and dominate the thread espousing their views only.

It is sad as the forum is a great way for good dialogue on various topics. The other threads when certain ones are not involved do have good dialogue and sharing of thoughts.

Allie

Allie,

No matter what you or I or anyone else says, a certain individual will never come out of his fantasy world. I have made a point of not replying to those with mental illness for as you know mental illness is a very serious thing. Those with such conditions drastically need help with their fantasies, illusions, and delusions. Attempting to engage in civil discussions is fruitless as any normal person knows that it is impossible to attempt sane conversations with a lunatic. To have someone who has openly derided someone for no reason other then posting a viewpoint that exists outside of their extremely limited mental capacity for understanding others is bad enough. To have such a person live in such a mental state that they can not even be aware of what games that they are playing is not only an obvious abuse of their self proclaimed 'profession' but a complete and total reflection upon himself. Severe mental illness is a trajedy in life. Nothing we can do about it here other then to strongly suggest that the individual seeks professional help immediately.

"Obviously, some don't, else they would recognize that those that do understand are the ones speaking out against bullies and nastiness.
Because one is not of the wingnut perversion does not allow those that are to be the bullies and the most nastiest and then accuse all others of their actions ... something many have noted and posted about before."

Hope you were looking in the mirror when you wrote this as this is exactly what you do post after post. Don't throw it back on others. Buck up.....you just don't like when others come back at you and call you on the very quote you do above. Tut ... tut....wonder how long some have to walk the earth to grow up?

Allie

[simonsebs]

I don't George Bush is insane. But, especially after watching the 2004 debates, I think he's pretty dumb.

As a sidenote this topic looks like every other topic in Open Conversation. It starts out civil, but then someone says something, someone else disagrees, then it degenerates into mud-slinging and name calling.
Its always a select few who are doing it. Also, before anyone says anything, both sides are wrong for doing this. Even if they don't think they are doing it in the first place. We can never get anywhere as people or a country if we can't even sit down and talk like civilized human beings.

Also before I forget, I want to give big props. to big-thinker for what he said about virgins.

[usmc1]

Back on topic, and putting to rest the "most of us think" canard.

Is George W. Bush, the current President of the United States Clinically Insane

5 (12%) I don't know, and only a psychiatrist could say for sure, but he is sure one bizarre puppy.

6 (15%) Nah, he ain't insane he's just a typical rich kid that's always had his way.

6 (15%) This sort of question is unpatriotic and despicable.

4 (10%) He's a marvelous man, who suffers with patience the worst sort of villification and slander from his political enemies.

3 (7%) Who cares, tomorrow he becomes a lame duck with a oppostion party Congress & Senate.

17 (41%) Yep, he's crazier than a run over lizard

25% percent see Bush in a favorable way.

75% See him unfavorably. Doubt his sanity or regard him as irrelevant

53% Doubt his sanity

So when the voices from the right seek to speak to the forum as representing "most of us" we can regard it as the usual right wing prevarication, misrepresentation and outright BS.

And this tracks pretty close to how the national polls are measuring him.

[nacktman]

Thanks usmc1 for the update.
It seems the fantasy dwellers are still at it accusing all others of their own delusions.

As a professional in the mental health field I can say with certainty that the shrub is insane and is a threat to humanity (well, that last one any schmoe could recognize).
Handwringing and screaming that he isn't won't change the fact that he is no matter how hard and how long the wingnuts try and keep it up.

In every thread the wingnuts rail against the fact they are not allowed to rant and denounce all outside their narrow mind set. Thay cannot abide differences and attack and obfuscate, never discussing the actual topic at hand -- this thread is a perfect example.

gymnasthorse just what are the things you like about the shrub, I would like to hear as would Still_Boreas as she frst posed the question to you. Oh, and being a bit more Irish than Scots is not as bad as thing as that, we all can't be Scots -- it's better than being English. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

[Sanslines]

If you wonder why so few post to topics such as this, I believe that unfortunately many have given up. Most people come to the forum to relax. Most are not sadomasochists who come for abuse by others.

Most of us have grown tired of this childish nonsense.

Most of us have better things to do in the real world then live our lives in cyberspace.

Most of us have moved on to be with civil and open minded individuals who can carry an intelligent conversation.

Most of us understand the truth how one poster abused someone who dared express a differing opinion in this topic and then watched that individual deny his abuse and mockery with a response that most of us can't stop laughing about.

Most of us wonder how such so called grown men can act like such juveniles as if they never grew up. With age comes maturity and wisdom. However, some posters prove how there are always exceptions to this rule.


Most of us are very thankful that such posters spend their lives on line as opposed to the real world for God help those in the real world that they come across.

Most of us clearly realize that the the so called 'professional in the mental health' field actually needs serious help from that very same mental health field.

Most of us will not reply as most of us are not masochists and have too much self respect to put up with abuse from a delusional and tyranical bully.

Most of us understand that it is fruitless to discuss, debate, or acknowledge someone who desperately needs mental health help. The only suggestion that most of us can make is to get that mental health help NOW!

"As to the statement about no one would tolerate being called an idiot in person for expressing their 'personal' ideas ... 'someone' needs to get a grip, it happens everyday ... 'someone' has never had a job, been in a live forum or even in the grocery store check out line if they believe that load of horse-hockey...."

Most of us now see that the poster is accustomed to being called an idiot by people in real life. Does this really surprise any of us?

This list that most of us have created continues to expand..........

[simonsebs]

Why don't we all just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

[nacktman]

simonsebs, a few of us agreed to that very thing a while back.
In fact it was right about the time we discovered there was more to life than our own anal cavity.
The neo-cons unfortunately did not and are still obfuscating, bellowing and blowing smoke.
All of which is boring us to tears when not making us laugh until the tears come.
But, I digress ...

With at least 75% of the general population of the opinion the shrub has one or more screws loose and all (yes I mean every single one) the professional mental health workers I know from Q's to MD's to PhD's are firmly convinced the shrub is not living on the same planet as the rest of us, it is a wonder the neo-cons still try to tell us he's not insane.
But then again they haven't moved on from the facination with their own anal cavities like the rest of humanity did when they where around two years old or so.
Of course, they are not posting on topic as is typical of the perversity of the neo-con.
They hope to distract and confuse any thread away from topic they post in, disrupting discussion and debate among people of differing ideas and ideals and then attempting to say those they attack and denounce are guilty of their foibles.

The old adage of "If you can't stand the heat, Stay out of the kitchen.", really is a good code to live by, but the neo-cons can't do that if someone else is the cook and whine if any warmth is applied (or none for that matter) to their precious dogma.

Simon, it is not about agreeing or disagreeing; it is the tactics used by the close-minded who sit on this thread and ridicule other posters of differing opinions post after post. It is difficult to phantom that a certain poster is a professional with his behavior on this forum when he calls other posters labels that do not apply to them but only in his mind.

It's sad that it occurs but it does. Just read his posts. Just read the post above for a clear example.

Allie

[nacktman]

Tell me, why am I not surprised http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif.
******************

Rebekah, are you going to answer the question posed to you by Still_Boreas? We would like to know.

[nacktman]

The shrub's new suit.

[Boreas]

Oh, and being a bit more Irish than Scots is not as bad as thing as that, we all can't be Scots -- it's better than being English.

I am really messed! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/blush.gif I have all three including some German heritage! Not to mention my blond English grandfather suspected that he and I were blonde because of some Viking influence. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sneaky.gif

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Oh, and being a bit more Irish than Scots is not as bad as thing as that, we all can't be Scots -- it's better than being English.

I am really messed! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/blush.gif I have all three including some German heritage! Not to mention my blond English grandfather suspected that he and I were blonde because of some Viking influence. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sneaky.gif

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I got that mix too. Plus Yankee and Southern lines. Up North my Palatine Germans settled in the Mohawk Valley and married up with the Scottish Blairs and Irish Kennedys, picked up some Native American connections.

Down South in Virgina, NC, & Tenn, we ain't nuttin but a bunch of ole sandhill, Scot-Irish peckerwoods with some drops of Cherokee, and probably African, mixed in. I need to do one of those DNA dealies some day.

All of them have been here since the early 1700's.

Bottom line, my Northern relatives are all lace-curtain and my Southern is strictly pig-in-the-parlor, bare-foot, bog-trotters.

Makes for some damn interesting family get togethers. I'd write a book about it, if i could just quit laughing and gaping in wonderment.

[Boreas]

Bottom line, my Northern relatives are all lace-curtain and my Southern is strictly pig-in-the-parlor, bare-foot, bog-trotters.


http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif Well that does expalin a lot!

I guess you are good ol Heinz 57 American and I am Heinz 57 Canadian. I suspect we are not alone in that!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

[Naturist Mark]

I've got a similar mix, with English, Scots, German and Shawnee in the logpile, plus whatever else the elders never talked about. I've even got Cuban and Japanese cousins. Awhile back David77 and I discovered we are distant cousins - both descended from the Yankee patriarch Elder John Crandall (http://www.cfa.net/cfa/colonial.html) of Rhode Island.

What was the topic?

-Mark

[Big-Thinker]

I'd love to get one of those DNA tests sometime to determine something about my ancestory. I think I'm a mix of pretty much everything European, but you never know for sure where all of your ancestors are from. DNA testing can now say alot, they say, indicating sometimes unexpected ancestory. I think a company that does it charges something like $200.

Yeah, what was that topic?

[nacktman]

Ah, gentlemen, the topic is the fact that the shrub is insane.
An overwelming majority think so among the general population of the US.
Not to mention the even bigger majority of the world's population that view him as insane.
And the even bigger percentage of Professional Mental Health workers that are sure he's insane.

As to the current pause ... I am Celtic, mainly Scots with a dash of Irish and Welsh along with German and Italian in the woodpile ... at least from the european branches of the tree. The local branches include Cherokee mostly, with a few Creek, Catawba, Shawnee and Lumbee tossed in for spice. Or, at least that's all we have traced thus far.

[usmc1]

OK - Back On Topic

Further evidence that the lunatic, dry-drunk sociopath and his coven of river trolls, bridge ogres, and deep-forest hobgoblins posing as neo-cons lied us into a desperately wasteful, tragically deadly, budget-busting, nation dividing war of no necessity.

Bush is not the only lunatic, we all are since we've not yet marched en masse to the White House demanding this punk's immediate resignation along with his entire administration's.

WP: Pentagon provided 'dubious' intel
Pentagon report says ex-policy chief gave 'dubious' info to White House
By Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith
The Washington Post
Updated: 9:03 a.m. CT Feb 9, 2007
WASHINGTON - Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.

Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith's activities as "an alternative intelligence assessment process."

An unclassified summary of the full document is scheduled for release today in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which Levin chairs. In that summary, a copy of which was obtained from another source by The Washington Post, the inspector general concluded that Feith's assessment in 2002 that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a "mature symbiotic relationship" was not fully supported by available intelligence but was nonetheless used by policymakers.

At the time of Feith's reporting, the CIA had concluded only that there was an "evolving" association, "based on sources of varying reliability."

Feith says report was a critique, not intel
In a telephone interview Thursday, Feith emphasized the inspector general's conclusion that his actions, described in the report as "inappropriate," were not unlawful. "This was not 'alternative intelligence assessment,' " he said. "It was from the start a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community, and in presenting it I was not endorsing its substance."

Feith, who was defense policy chief before leaving the government in 2005, was one of the key contributors to the administration's rationale for war. His intelligence activities, authorized by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, and coordinated with Vice President Cheney's office, stemmed from an administration belief that the CIA was underplaying evidence of then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's ties with al-Qaeda.

In interviews with Pentagon investigators, the summary document said, Feith insisted that his activities did not constitute intelligence and that "even if they were, [they] would be appropriate given that they were responding to direction from the Deputy Secretary of Defense."

Levin: Intelligence was ‘manipulated’
The report was requested in fall 2005 by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), then chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Although the committee and a number of official inquiries had criticized the administration's prewar intelligence, Democratic senators, led by Levin, demanded further investigation of Feith's operation.

"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq," Levin said yesterday. "The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."

Assessments differed from CIA findings
The summary document confirmed a range of accusations that Levin had leveled against Feith's office, alleging inaccurate work.

Feith's office, it said, drew on "both reliable and unreliable" intelligence reports in 2002 to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration."

It stated that the office produced intelligence assessments "inconsistent" with the U.S. intelligence community consensus, calling those actions "inappropriate" because the assessments purported to be "intelligence products" but were far more conclusive than the consensus view.

In particular, the summary cited the defense policy office's preparation of slides describing as a "known contact" an alleged 2001 meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta, the leader of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, and an Iraqi intelligence officer.

That claim figured heavily in statements by Cheney and other senior administration officials alleging a link between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime, but it has since been discredited.

Three versions of the briefing prepared by Feith's office were presented in August and September 2002 -- months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then Cheney's chief of staff; Rumsfeld; and then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, the summary states.

Office rapped for ‘inappropriate’ activities
But only "some of the information" in those briefings was "supported by available intelligence," the summary said. The version of the briefing presented to senior Bush officials, it said, contained different information than a presentation to the CIA. Left out of the version for the CIA, the inspector general said, was "a slide that said there were 'fundamental problems'" with the way the intelligence community was presenting the evidence.

While Pentagon officials said in responses cited in the summary that no senior policymakers mistook these briefings as "intelligence assessments," the inspector general said that administration officials had indeed cited classified intelligence that allegedly documented a close al-Qaeda-Iraq relationship.

The policy office, the summary stated, "was inappropriately performing Intelligence Activities . . . that should be performed by the Intelligence Community."

The summary recommended no action within the Defense Department because, it said, the current collaboration under new leadership at the Pentagon and the intelligence community "will significantly reduce the opportunity for the inappropriate conduct of intelligence activities outside intelligence channels."

[simonsebs]

Whose crazier the President or the Congress who let him get away with everything?

[nacktman]

Simon, it shouldn't need to be pointed out that the "Congress" was until recently controlled by the very same cabal of troglodyte neo-cons that are the shrub's handlers.

The days of getting away with "everything" are over and if you pay attention to the media outside the USA you'll find out how much of a two-year-old whining crybaby the shrub really is when he doesn't get his way.

The big muscular men holding that white coat that ties in the back have encircled him and are closing in.

[Naturist Mark]

Yep, now that Democrats control the agenda, and can actually call hearings into wrongdoings, and can subpoena witnesses, some long neglected crimes and outrages are finally being investigated - like the 8.7 Billion Dollars in shrink wrapped 100 dollar bills that were 'lost' in the first 9 months of the occupation.

When you ship 27 semi truckloads of US currency into a war zone - you are planning on losing a big chunk of it. That 8.7 Billion was a theft planned by the White House - bank on it.

-Mark

[l2ltlarry]

nacktman, seeing that you were a minister in one of your past lives, I'm wondering what is your position on "peace on earth, good will to men", "men" of course, meaning "men and women"?

And at what point does one cross the line from vigorous, learned debate into browbeating?

Einstein once responded to a challenge titled, "One Hundred People Who Think Einstein is Wrong" by saying "If I'm wrong, one will be enough."

The 75-percent of Americans who think Bush is wrong or insane could turn out to be, after the passage of time and in the grand sweep of history, wrong. My approach to arguments is to see how many ways things can be looked at. And while things haven't gone well in the Bush presidency, the fact is, history cannot go down two paths at once. If it could, we could see which path is better. It seems true to me that life can only be lived forward but can only be understood backward.

As to criticism of insufficient paragraphing, some of us have little or no ability to paragraph. I've been criticised by every boss I've had since I first started submitting required status reports in 1982 that I needed to be brief. I don't have that talent.

[l2ltlarry]

Before Cyndianne was booted, she attempted to dominate every thread she participated in. Basically everything she said was fact and everything everyone else said was opinion. Her attempts to browbeat everyone into agreeing with her made her very unpleasant to deal with. I would hope that intelligent people on clothesfreeforums would be better than that.

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
Before Cyndianne was booted, she attempted to dominate every thread she participated in. Basically everything she said was fact and everything everyone else said was opinion. Her attempts to browbeat everyone into agreeing with her made her very unpleasant to deal with. I would hope that intelligent people on clothesfreeforums would be better than that.

The truth is that just about everything on these topics are subjective opinions. What should happen is that everyone is treated with kindness and respect regardless of their opinions. Everyone has reasons for what they believe in and this forum should allow all opinions to be expressed without bullying.

What does happen is that a very small group dominates these topics and belittles anyone who posts an opinion that does not march lock step with theirs. Their justification for doing this is that some time ago in the past they claim to have been bullied by a few so called neo cons. Their response to that bullying is to turn around and use the same tactics on others to force this forum to conform to their way of thinking.

Their behavior is as bad if not worse then those that they claim abused them. The result is that many posters have been driven away. Perhaps that is the ultimate goal - to drive away anyone who does not conform.

This particular topic has degraded to pure childish garbage. It has degraded to a small group of (so called) grown men who do nothing but curse, swear, and insult a president, AND then abuse anyone who attempts to have any kind of intelligent conversation about those policies without personalizing the discussion. How many will not post anything here for fear of being attacked for asking a question or posting a contrary view? Strongly disagreeing with a president's policies is one thing. Posting the kind of personal attacking hateful garbage that this topic has degraded to is another.

[Sanslines]

And at what point does one cross the line from vigorous, learned debate into browbeating?

Vigorous, learned, and intelligent debate may involve very heated arguments. However, grown, mature, and intelligent men and women NEVER allow the debate to degrade to name calling and personalizing the debate. In a real world and professional debate, debate moderators would never allow this to happen and would step in and stop the debate immediately.

Under this topic, there no longer is any debate as this topic was bullied into conforming to a very one sided viewpoint. Anyone who dares to post and stray from that viewpoint is driven from the topic.

[usmc1]

If you'd like to discuss how history will regard Bush, I suspect that, aside from the Iraq disaster built on lies, prevarifications, exagerations, fear-mongering, hubris, greed and outright meglomania, which this moment is threatening to tip the entire region into all out war, it will be unkind.

I'm certain that history will take note of the unparalled corruption and outright criminality of administration officials and the Republican congress.

I'm fully convinced that history will note the missed opportunities at diplomacy and the breakdown of alliances built over the last century or so.

History will also note the emergent proof of vote tampering and outright disenfranchment of minority voters in the 2000 election and subsequent methods of stifling votes through wrongful allocation of voting machines in key precincts in 2002 coupled with electronic voting "failures".

History will note the outright assualt on the Constitution and the attempts to subvert due process and undermine the American way of life in ways that the Communist cells of the forties and fifties never dreamed of.

History will surely take into account the burdensome debt and efforts to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs which for decades have made the U.S. the envy of the world.

History can't ignore an unfair tax program; taking from the poor and middle-class to bloat the coffers of the already wealthy.

History will most likely do more than footnote this administration's failure to perform any meaningful act to come to terms with our failing public education system.

History will not be kind to this whelp. That is if we survive the next two years and there is a history to be told.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
Strongly disagreeing with a president's policies is one thing. Posting the kind of personal attacking hateful garbage that this topic has degraded to is another.

Agreed, and from this point forward, the posts in the topic at hand will be restricted to the president, his policies and whether or not he's deranged. Any further deviations of the type mentioned above will be edited and will result in the topic being closed.

[usmc1]

And furthermore, In my post concerning the IGs report on the fabrications of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war I challenged out resident neo-cons to offer meaningful rebuttal.

For some reason that reason vanished from the post.

That is on topic. Yet the personal attacks and unfair characterizations from the right continue unabated.

Again, I challenge those on the right: Stop the diversions, stop the ad hominem arguements, stop the simpering "poor abused us" bleatings, stop the self-supporting drivel and offer up a meaningful, fact-based rebuttal to the DODs Inspector General's report on the outright effort of a highly placed, neo-con, official to cook the pre-war intelligence into a porridge acceptable to the palate of the maniac in the White House.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by usmc1:
And furthermore, In my post concerning the IGs report on the fabrications of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war I challenged out resident neo-cons to offer meaningful rebuttal.

For some reason that reason vanished from the post.

That is on topic. Yet the personal attacks and unfair characterizations from the right continue unabated.



I'm unaware of that. The only thing disappearing from your posts are the same kind of ad hominem arguments you accuse your opponents of. No one is attacking you. Stop being a bully and stay on topic, or you might find yourself unable to participate. This has gone on more than long enough.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sanslines:
Strongly disagreeing with a president's policies is one thing. Posting the kind of personal attacking hateful garbage that this topic has degraded to is another.

Agreed, and from this point forward, the posts in the topic at hand will be restricted to the president, his policies and whether or not he's deranged. Any further deviations of the type mentioned above will be edited and will result in the topic being closed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CFF, I do not envy you your tasks. But, I do strongly take exception to this post if it means you accept the characterizations of "bullying and brow-beating", "cursing and swearing", aimed at liberals from the right wing who depleted of any factual arguement time after time in these threads instigate this same shrill "poor us" line.

Look it's politics. What is said here is very pale to Cheney's "f... you!" in the Senate.

I suppsoe what I'm trying to say, is that I'd like to see an even-handedness. I do not understand why you can let stand characterizing people as bullies, brow-beaters, and swearing and cursing and remove my challenge to the "hand-wringers and neo-cons"?

As to killing the thread, its been done before, always following the same tactics by the right. That certainly is your perogative, but, I would view it as grossly unfair.

You can take that opinion and $3.25 to Starbucks and they'll "give" you a latte!

[Unwired]

In the past four pages of this thread, I am able to identify exactly one, highly suspect, probable female impersonator of a poster who is indeed completely unable to form a cogent argument for his support of bush, of whom your characterizations are probably accurate. I don't even know what the political persuasion(s) of the others are; the only objections they're raising are to your tone, not the positions you've staked out. Can you not see the difference?

Additionally, if you can't identify the difference between actual, on-point debate and the sheer excessiveness of a statement like

I challenge our resident, holier-than-thou, breast beating, hand-wringing neo-cons with their enough to gag-a-maggot pontifications about liberal bullying, to rebut this with any meaningful counter information.

...then I don't know what else to say, except that there will be no more notices or warnings issued.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Unwired:
In the past four pages of this thread, I am able to identify exactly one, highly suspect, probable female impersonator of a poster who is indeed completely unable to form a cogent argument for his support of bush, of whom your characterizations are probably accurate. I don't even know what the political persuasion(s) of the others are; the only objections they're raising are to your tone, not the positions you've staked out. Can you not see the difference?

Additionally, if you can't identify the difference between actual, on-point debate and the sheer excessiveness of a statement like

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I challenge our resident, holier-than-thou, breast beating, hand-wringing neo-cons with their enough to gag-a-maggot pontifications about liberal bullying, to rebut this with any meaningful counter information.

...then I don't know what else to say, except that there will be no more notices or warnings issued. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine, we agree that my style can be inflammatory. We disagree as to its being appropriate. But, since you get to put the period at the end of the final sentence, I'll do my best to restrain the turgidity of my prose.

Thank you, Unwired, for stepping up to the plate with this thread and it's bruising posts from some of the posters. There is nothing better than a good debate with the exchange of ideas, opinions, and facts, but it is most difficult when some want to throw flames, talk down to people, and make harsh and vicious statements about a poster's opinion.

usmc, you are an individual of intelligence and you do post good thoughts but it is how you post them that creates a riff and a void with other posters. One cannot get past your sharp razor edge of attacking someone you define as a "neo-con" which seems to be anyone who isn't on the same thought plane you are. An opposing opinion is ridiculed, attacked, such as the statement you made that was removed by a moderator. There is simply no need to make such statements in a forum that is about sharing our opinions on the various threads. It is the exchange of how we think along with posting factual links or facts that inform, enlighten, or open a discussion to deeper depths of thought. This is what makes a debate good!

And yes, debates get heated but it up to us as posters and the adults we are suppose to be to keep them focused and on track without resorted to statements like "gag-a maggot pontifications".

Sanslines says it well above. Very well stated posts about this thread. There is absolutely no need to bully anyone for their opinions, right or wrong.

Allie

[Naturist Mark]

I try to reserve judgement.

Most people form political opinions without much resort to fact - it is informed by those of their role models and by what they absorb from the ever present media (which is why the lousy state of our news media is a shame if not a crime).

Most people have good sense and good intentions - even when being deceived by corrupt opinion leaders and misinformed by a cowardly media - they do eventually come around. I've seen that happen with people who post here. We all saw it happen in the last election - where the races weren't even close enough to steal (except in Florida's 13th).

The media still plays the game of 'balance' where they don't attempt to balance political viewpoints, but they do balance truth with lies - the deceptions about the war in Iraq no longer hold up - the deceptions about there being a 'scientific controversy' about climate change no long hold water. Given time, people figure out the truth. Even our young posters who are taught to respect authority but not taught to seek the truth.

So let's reserve judgement and try to inform rather than inflame. Those who are suspect (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1600016152/m/2370022474?r=2370022474#2370022474) may just be inexperienced. The truth will out.

-Mark

Mark - very well stated. I agree we should inform, not change or inflame.

Allie

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
I try to reserve judgement.

Most people form political opinions without much resort to fact - it is informed by those of their role models and by what they absorb from the ever present media (which is why the lousy state of our news media is a shame if not a crime).

Most people have good sense and good intentions - even when being deceived by corrupt opinion leaders and misinformed by a cowardly media - they do eventually come around. I've seen that happen with people who post here. We all saw it happen in the last election - where the races weren't even close enough to steal (except in Florida's 13th).

The media still plays the game of 'balance' where they don't attempt to balance political viewpoints, but they do balance truth with lies - the deceptions about the war in Iraq no longer hold up - the deceptions about there being a 'scientific controversy' about climate change no long hold water. Given time, people figure out the truth. Even our young posters who are taught to respect authority but not taught to seek the truth.

So let's reserve judgement and try to inform rather than inflame. Those who are suspect (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1600016152/m/2370022474?r=2370022474#2370022474) may just be inexperienced. The truth will out.

-Mark

Mark,

I agree with what you have said above. I would like to elaborate a bit more. Everyone has different reasons for believing what they do. Some may lack information. Some may not be particularly interested in the topic at hand. For whatever reason, everyone should be tolerated and respected for their thoughts and opinions.

Even though others might not agree with those opinions, I think that as mature adults we should strive to tolerate those opinions in a respectful manner. In many cases we may not agree with each other. However, this does not mean that I am not interested in what you have to say and the reasons behind your opinions. In the end you might not educate, persuade, or motivate someone into entirely changing their opinions. But, you just might give someone new insight and consideration and that, in and of itself, is of important value.

[Naturist Mark]

I agree we should inform, not change or inflame.
Oh, I absolutely intend to change beliefs, just as mine have been changed as I've learned new things.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by AlexisDanielle:
Thank you, Unwired, for stepping up to the plate with this thread and it's bruising posts from some of the posters. There is nothing better than a good debate with the exchange of ideas, opinions, and facts, but it is most difficult when some want to throw flames, talk down to people, and make harsh and vicious statements about a poster's opinion.

usmc, you are an individual of intelligence and you do post good thoughts but it is how you post them that creates a riff and a void with other posters. One cannot get past your sharp razor edge of attacking someone you define as a "neo-con" which seems to be anyone who isn't on the same thought plane you are. An opposing opinion is ridiculed, attacked, such as the statement you made that was removed by a moderator. There is simply no need to make such statements in a forum that is about sharing our opinions on the various threads. It is the exchange of how we think along with posting factual links or facts that inform, enlighten, or open a discussion to deeper depths of thought. This is what makes a debate good!

And yes, debates get heated but it up to us as posters and the adults we are suppose to be to keep them focused and on track without resorted to statements like "gag-a maggot pontifications".

Sanslines says it well above. Very well stated posts about this thread. There is absolutely no need to bully anyone for their opinions, right or wrong.

Allie

I guess it depends on what one defines as "bullying". For me, "piling on" a poster, after that poster has been muzzled by the moderator, with remarks characterizing that poster in a negative fashion amounts to a form of bullying.

I don't agree with your characterization of me or my manner of expressing myself. And I think it is grossly unfair of you to engage in such personal criticisms right after I have been publically chastized to refrain from expressing my disagreements in the manner I choose.

But, I'll close with this. I've lived in my skin long enough to know who, and the sort of people, I irritate, both online and in real time. And it does not grieve me one whit that those people do not care for me or my style.

That is partly because I get sufficient feedback from those who do care for me and what I say and how I say it.

Now, if you've something to say to me along the lines of this thread's topic, wonderful, otherwise I'd prefer you refrain from your disparaging comments about me, because I really do not think Unwired's remarks to me were license for you, or anyone else, to engage in a negative evaluation of me or my manner of expressing myself, particularly since I'm threatened with expulsion if I respond in kind.

[barenaked1]

I thought you had to be at least 18 to post on the forums. I see very little maturity at all or the ability to post a reasonable arguement.

Originally posted by gymnasthorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Ok, I'll be the spelling Nazi here and point out that 'virgin' is spelled with two "I's" not an "I and an E" and that 'motorcycle' is spelled with two "O's" instead of an "O and an E" ... naivete might not be the problem there.
It sounds like the 'back of the short bus' rider to me.

So I have dislexia. So SUE ME!!!!!!!! You people are the meanest group of DomoCRAPS I've ever met! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Naturist Mark]

I thought you had to be at least 18 to post on the forums.
People with an age on their profile under 18 cannot post - almost but not quite the same thing.

Gymnasthorse's profile says she is 23. She has been quite open about herself after a rocky start. Of course there is no way to verify anything ... which is why we should reserve judgement.

And what does it matter anyway?

I hope she feels welcome to keep posting, and that she develops a thicker skin while we show patience.

Whether we believe or not.

-Mark

[nacktman]

On topic:

At least 75% of US residents view the shrub as insane.
Worldwide opinion hovers at 90% as to the same conclusion.
Opinion polls among Mental Health workers (in the USA alone) show 97% view him as insane.

[Unwired]

Sorry folks, we tried. This thread is now closed.