Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY college!

Do you ever wonder if there is such a thing as an RNC troll?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee\";p=\"92583)</div>

When I see this particular phrase, I always wonder who the writer's president is.


Would someone please enlighten me?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(popoff\";p=\"93752)</div>

When I see this particular phrase, I always wonder who the writer's president is.


Would someone please enlighten me?[/b][/quote]popoff, I went back and found galaxee's post and feel you took him out of context. To me, it was quite clear that galaxee was making the point that he did not support GW.

And as for the suggestion that some President "is not my president", Newt Gingrinch, and other Republican leaders, made that point about Clinton all the time, and in Clinton's case, they meant it the way you intimate that galaxee meant it about Bush. So if you want to be enlightened, maybe you could ask them.

In NUMEROUS cases, they referred to Clinton as "YOUR president" or "THEIR president".

 

My, my, Billy, calm down...if you'll read my statement, I didn't assume anything about you. I left that open for you. If you consider yourself liberal, however, then it's safe to assume that you and I disagree on a whole bunch of topics. We can also disagree without resorting to invectives like "arrogance" and "fooling oneself;" just because I disagree with a liberal, or you, or another conservative doesn't make me a fool or arrogant. I do listen to Rush. Perhaps you might try listening to him. He finds liberals entertaining. There are liberals in the media that find conservatives entertaining as well. But I don't agree with them. The term "right wing extremist" is used constantly by the left and the msm. You'd be hard pressed to recall the term "left wing extremist" being used by anyone. These days I would prefer being labeled a "right wing extremist" than a "liberal".

 

[/quote]popoff, I went back and found galaxee's post and feel you took him out of context.
[/quote]

Please forgive me for quoting the phrase from Galaxee's post. My question was not directed at her message or any other post.

I'm simply asking a very general question of the people on Prischat, which I will repeat. What does the phrase "he is not my president" mean to you?

 

the professor is correct. Do not accept any faith without your own personal investigation. Do not take anyone's word for the truth. Your heart will decipher the truth. Everyone should do their own personal investigation of the truth (one of the main principals of the Baha'i Faith).

The Baha'i Faith is a religion who's holy scriptures are written by the actual manifestation of God himself (named Baha'u'allah) instead of being written by "professional rememberers" as in the Bible or Quran. Go to www.Bahai.com for more information.

I support you in your spiritual and religious growth.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius\";p=\"88425)</div>

 

If you think that the term liberal is not used by republicans to insinuate extreme left wing, then unfortunately you are fooling yourself. It's no suprise to me that you listen to Rush, I listen to Rush occasionally to keep up on the nonsense and hypocrisy being spewed by this man and the Republican party.

The other day I heard him talking about how fear leads to irrational thought, blaming black leaders of inciting fear about Dubya's judicial nominees. The fact that this man can say with a straight face that "fear leads to irrational thought" when he and members of the Republican party used nothing but fear and scare tacticts to get this country into Iraq, disgusts me. ukeright:

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Extremism is dangerous in any form. Religious extremism is deadly, regardless of transubstantiation.

The voice of intelligence ... is drowned out by the roar of fear. It is ignored by the voice of desire. It is contradicted by the voice of shame. It is biased by hate and extinguished by anger. Most of all it is silenced by ignorance.
--Dr. Karl Menninger

 

Billy, you're tripping over your anger. So I'll end my participation in the discourse by thanking you for being passionate, but I'm turned off by your anger. We're expecting delivery of a white #4 package within the next couple of weeks. So wish us luck; and all the best to you. We'll be looking forward to your postings in the future!

 

The link is here: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojom...&issue=050526#3

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Hey Moby!

I was just scanning the last page of this thread and saw your reference to the Baha'i Faith. Nice to know that I am not the only Prius driving Baha'i out there!. It is a shame that these political or religious conversations always seem to develope into anger. I guess when we feel pasionately about something, we sometimes become blinded to any other opinions. Please femember folks, "we are all branches of one tree and flowers of one garden." (Taken from the Baha'i writings). We can all hold different views and respect the diversity that is the human condition.

Enjoy your cars folks!!

Dan

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Political and religious discussions often devolve into anger because for 20 years the likes of Newt,Rush, and the running-scared fundamentalists have led the political discourse without any ameliorating opinions allowed to balance their invectives. Those who disagree with these bigots are Tired, not of them, but of the lefties not countermanding their drivel thereby leaving the 'less-than-intelligent' to believe (instead of question) and further repeat as fact the sputum they hear from the hate-filled talking heads. Remember, it is those talking heads who impeached the most powerful man in the world for getting a blow job, but don't apply the same standards to some self-appointed (NOT duly elected) prick who LIED to the whole country, not about something personal, but about Killing tens of thousands of people and spending our very huge surplus into profound deficits which will not allow the majority of their countrymen's wishes for a better society to be realized anytime soon due to our having to once again dig the 'fiscally responsible party' out. What started out 20 years ago as a hate-filled minority have bled their invectives into our daily lives, then they turn and blame their sworn enemies for the current unpleasant discourse which is now entrenched into the mainstream way of thinking. It's disingenuous, but works like a charm because sheepeople follow without question and the purveyors of hate know it. Personally, I'm tired of the whole thing and wish a pox on all their houses. I'm more comfortable with good, love and healthy discourse reining. You can tell...'I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one'.

 

MarinJohn, you seem to be as angry as Billy. You throw the label "bigot" around quite freely. I must correct you about a couple of things. Bill Clinton was not impeached for the reason you gave. He was impeached; he was impeached because, as President and as a licensed lawyer, he appeared before a federal court and committed perjury, colluded to commit perjury, and committed obstruction in order to destroy a private citizen's lawsuit. That affected you and me, MarinJohn; because that means that if any elected official were to commit perjury against you or me, that elected official could use Bill Clinton as a precedent; and he would walk away largely unharmed. As for the Bush administration "lying". I was under the impression that the entire world knew that Sadam had wmd programs.
The UN inspectors had documented wmd's in Iraq. No one will believe that a genie came out of a lamp in downtown Bhagdad and blinked those wmd's away. So where are they? The ONLY reason we know they're not in Iraq is because we went in there and kicked Sadam out. So the lying was not Bush's; it was Sadam's. I would suggest, MarinJohn, that, just because you might disagree with an opinion, doesn't make it necessarily disingenuous or hate-filled. I hope this posting will be considered "healthy discourse".

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

Thank you for your post. It took me 3 reads to get at all the obscure facts that you were pointing to, but I figured them out. There are numerous items here that you are alluding to, and you addressed them in less than 300 words. It would have taken me 1500.


EmilyJohn,
And as for WMD, please do not re-write history. The world did indeed think that Saddam had WMD, but we did not invade Iraq because Saddam had WMD. We invaded because Saddam had WMD that were an imminent threat to the USA. Remember the mushroom cloud analogy? Only the Bush administration felt that those WMD posed a threat to the USA. France, Russia, Germany, and even England didn't believe it, as evidenced by the Downing Street minutes from July of 2002. And very few other countries believed it as well.

So the re-write of history may play well on Faux News, but it won't play here. There are too many well informed people here.

 

Prius04, please allow me to correct you on the "imminent threat" accusation. If you'll go back and check the speeches and press conferences given by the Bush people and by "W" himself, there was NEVER an imminent threat. The Bush Administration since September 11, 2001, has consisently, and without exception, explained to the world that everything changed on that infamous day. They have consistently stated that we can no longer wait for an imminent threat, because it would be far too late; waiting would be to our enemy's advantage, and to our peril. We must strike before there is an imminent threat. The "imminent threat" that you're talking about was coined in a speech by Bill Clinton in December, 2001. The MSM picked it up, twisted it, and continually and falsely attributed it to Bush. You've been whacked by the MSM.

 

Sorry, you've been whacked by the RWM, which the MSM has been cowered into being. Yes, you may succeed in finding statements that don't use the word "imminent", but imminent or urgent was exactly what the neocons wanted American's to believe, that's the language they used, and it worked. Whether they specifically used the word "imminent" is irrelevant. Indeed, the sense of urgency that pervaded our need to invade Iraq at the time we did was palpable.

In fact, your contention that we need to fight them "over there" so we don't have to fight them "over here" proves my point. In an earlier post, you stated we invaded because he had WMD. Now you are saying we invaded because he was a threat that we did not want to deal with "over here". Having WMD is not the same as threatening us "over here". How else can you explain all the other purveyors of WMD that GW has ignored?

Again, the urgency that existed in March of 2002 was extreme. To suggest that the Bush administration invaded Iraq in March of 02 "just because" is absurd. And please, don't wrap your arguments in 9/11. I'm a bit sick of that. I personally agree totally in the war on terror, I just wish GW would get back to it.



I'd also like to comment on your contention that Carter sold out the USA re Korean nuclear weapons.

In the mid 1990's, NKorea was on target to have nuclear weapons by 1998 or 1999. Thanks to Jimmy, it didn't happen until some time in 2003 or 2004.

And according to numerous reality based experts, and by that I mean those without a vested interest in seeing the Bush administration look good no matter what they do (Faux News for one example amoung many), had Bush not resorted to strong arm tactics like he did, to intimidate NK into some kind of submission, NK would still not likely have them. But thanks to GW, NK now likely has nuclear weapons.

And thanks to GW, Iran is likely next.
And thanks to GW, the clearest message that his misadventure in Iraq has shown is that the best way to prevent an American invasion is to REALLY have WMD, not just pretend to.

Thanks to GW, nonproliferation of nuclear weapons in the world is truly a mess. Thank you GW, for making me so much safer.

Now my sense is, EmilyJohn, that your source of "news" is totally different from mine. Thus, I do not expect to change your mind on Carter, Iraq, or anything else. My aim with this post is for other readers to see that your conclusions may not quite fit the facts.

I would suggest that everyone who reads anything from the media note who owns that media. Media in the USA has become extremely corporate. In Washington now is the most pro corporate administration since McKinley. This is not a coincidance. Billions are being spent to make GW look like the greatest president who has ever existed, as well as to make the Republican party look like the greatest political party that has ever existed. Some people genuinely believe that to be true, others don't really care as long as GW and the Republicans continue to give them the store.

This may be great for profit margins, but it is destroying the country that I love.

 

Wow, so prior to 1985 political & religious discourse was modeled on a prep school debating society? That's a remarkably shallow view of US history. I thought Marin County had better schools than that.

 

Actually I think MarinJohn was quite accurate in his assessment on the deterioration of discourse in America. Personally, I always thought that tolerance of someone who is different was a central tenet of American society. But boy has that changed.

A good example of the deterioration in discourse is the debating technique of accusing someone of saying something that they never said, and then ridiculing them for saying it.

 

google:
"dont crucify me on a cross of gold"
"54, 40 or fight"
was the civil war a debate?

 

[/quote]Actually I think MarinJohn was quite accurate in his assessment on the deterioration of discourse in America. Personally, I always thought that tolerance of someone who is different was a central tenet of American society. But boy has that changed.

A good example of the deterioration in discourse is the debating technique of accusing someone of saying something that they never said, and then ridiculing them for saying it.[/quote]

Prius04, normally I wouldn't even respond to something so slanderous as RonH's response, but since you so adequately brought it up...Thanks for pointing it out. His response illustrates nicely what we all can see for ourselves...The hate-mongers and their mindless minions will stoop to any level as long as it is low, underhanded and just plain dishonorable, just to justify their poor analytical and communication skills. They'll rewrite history (Emily) or twist the facts so absurdly as to be unrecognisable, then ridicule the messenger (RonH). It is OK though, as my best friend and I are on the oposite ends of the political spectrum and he very often resorts to such glaringly absurd responses to my well thought out arguments. When that invariably happens I just hope others can hear us debating so the foolishness of his responses can alert others to his sides' desperate need to defend himself no matter how absurd his arguments are...I truly believe such tactics illustrate the flaws in the hate-mongers thinking and the foolishness of his (their) delivery. I could easily respect an opposing opinion if it were well thought out. Hell, in the rare instance when that happens (Jayman) I get to learn something, revise my thought processes and get intellectually stimulated. I'm not the sharpest tack in the package, but compared to much of the rest of the pack my keeness shines and lends credability to my thought process. Usually my first entry into a thread takes into account all that was said before I entered, and through an educated process of theory,research, then presentation I weave my opinions life's experiences into a post. Invariably some right-wing-nut-job (TM of Jayman) knee-jerks with some standard variation of an expected reaction, which is so sophomoric that it lends creedence to my well thought out post. After my original post I rarely respond again as the discourse which was originally worthy of a good read/response becomes just more camel shit for the fire. Today I am feeling my oats and am re-responding to acknowlege Prius04 and to (needlessly) point out the flawed process reactionaries go through. While I was a lousy student in college, I did come away with one very important lesson...how to think for myself, instead of how to repackage mindless drivel and then regurgitate and spew it in a nonsensical manner which elicits a 'you go girl' from morons, while leaving most others to scratch their heads, wonder where to even start to counter before they walk away silently knowing the transparancy of the oposing side speaks for itself. Unfortunately, by recognising said transparancy, but remaining silent and smug in one's personal knowlege, we then leave the sheepeople out on a limb crowing their supposed superiority unopposed which leads them to further believe their own drivel. And this, boys and girls is exactly what has happened in this country for the past 20 years, leaving the right-wing extremests to believe their regurgitated drivel is unarguable fact.