Tica-

You crack me up. "NOW says that all sex is rape"????? Surely you jest! NOW has NEVER said such a thing. Perhaps you're conflating NOW with Andrea Dworkin, who has been accused of arguing that all heterosexual intercourse is rape. She disagrees that this is her position, but whatever her actual position is, it's pretty out there. Nevertheless, NOW does not and would not agree with this position. And Andrea Dworkin disavows NOW as being a group of conservatives. Only a reactionary such as yourself (or your friend Rush L.) could distort the truth this badly. Where do you come up with this shit?

NOW focuses on wommen's legal rights, health care issues, and such. They do support "radical" issues such as gay marriage, but they are not the femi-nazis the kooky right (as distinct from the conservatives) would have you believe. Only men who are scared shitless by competent women overreact to feminism, viewing it as a threat, and thus characterize it as something it's not.

I am holding off on the notion that you are stupid; I think you're just ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Stupidity is easier to accept.

At least Ticasonar has shown us how to get tax deductions for contributions to the ACLU. For that I am grateful as it will save me some money.

Perhaps he can also provide us information on how to donate to his other favorite charitable organization NOW.

Ticasonar: "...the evangelicals are democrats too"

Uh, hmmm... is it desperate rationalization or a head injuries that cause one to make such statements?

Ticasonar-

.....You will be lucky to get a reply from Laguy....he and others will just ignore the facts and spin on to something else.
And the ACLU is so fucking hypocritical when it comes to the freedom of speech and other issues when it suits their needs! Red the following articule completely!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-06-13-aclu-edit_x.htm

And they are outraged that the Bush Administration is databasing information for National Security to protect the country from terrorists groups who have stated their mission is to kill Americans. But the ACLU is "using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members & donors in a fundraising effort." How do you liberals defend that ???????????????????????????????????????????"

Well, other than reverifying my beliefs in the basic lack of intelligence of real estate agents and of Floridians, with you happening to be both, I would say this.

One, it's a fucking editoral to the USA Today. Not exactly Woodward and Bernstein writing in the Washington Post, is it?

Secondly, the ACLU is not a government. You voluntarily go to them. You don't voluntarily deal with the Federal government, do you?

Thirdly, name me one non-profit that relies on donations that doesn't do the exact same thing. It's called data mining. Your local Winn-Dixie and Publix, your bank, your credit card companies - pretty much every company you deal with does it.

Does it make it right? Maybe not, but you really are grasping at ever thinner straws here.

Hey Blissman, you forgot to mention Ticasonar's point about most millionaires being Democrats.

I personally think that it is a mistake for the ACLU to profile its donors. It does look hypocritical, and I have to wonder whether it is an act of desparation because of inability to raise funds for their project. Whatever happens, the ACLU will need to deal with the ramifications with its donors and other interested parties.

However I do not agree the ACLU's mistakes in some way justifies the espionage activities of the executive branch. I am very concerned between the balance of power between the three branches. We need a smaller executive branch, and a more powerful legislative and judicial branch particularly on a matter of due process and citizen privacy.

Catacony-

We are not talking about other non-profits or private companies data basing.....! We are talking about the very organization that prides itself on protecting anyone who's privacy and freedom of speech has been violated, including foreign terrorists who have killed and want to kill Americans.

And you voluntary give them a donation.... as Michael Meyers (ACLU National Board member, Vice-President and member for 23 years) says by giving a donation...."YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN THEM PERMISSION to investigate my partners, who I am married to, what they do, what my wealth is, and who else I give my money to!"
And oh yeah....and so much for the ACLU stance on freedom of speech....as long as you don't disagree with their policies you can have freedom of speech. Michael Meyers and others found out that if you have dissenting views you are ousted!

Beachman,

And no one was talking about Sandy Berger either. You seem to enjoy bringing up absolutely random and retarded "evidence" to support whatever feeble minded attempt at an idea your small brain comes up with. Are we not afforded the same lattitude in rebutting your mind leakage?

Catacony-

There you go again...deflecting the issue from the ACLU"s double standards.

Sandy Berger was part of the Clinton Adminstration and what was he doing stealing classified documents...stuffing them in his pants.....covering up Clinton's lack of action against Bin Laden.

Back to the ACLU databasing personal information WITHOUT THE PERMISSION of donors and members and then ousting Board members who speak out for disagreeing with the policy. Where do you stand on that.....do you or do you not agree with their policy. Simple question....no need to spin your answer with unrelated material?

In 2004 73% of evangelical Christians who voted, voted for Bush. Nearly the same percentage reported being registered as Republicans. The evangelical vote, one could argue, was the difference in the election, as no other group split as clearly between the parties. Makes it kind of hard to argue that The Republican party is not aligned with the religious right. Read "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips, a conservative Republican and former Nixon speechwriter and Republican electoral strategist. You might learn something interesting.

Beachman, bobo, why would I discuss the ACLU in the first place? I'm not a member, don't donate funds and have never used them to bring a petition. Why the fuck are you even on that thread - that's my point. It's irrelevent to anything I've been writing about. Or do you equate everyone who's anti-Bush to being in the ACLU? Bash away on the ACLU all day, it matters not to me. As far as Sandy Berger, there's a whole fucking archive of papers and electronic files and he pinched a handful for what turned out to be something stupid. Are you calling that a coverup? A coverup of what? The entire evil plan of Democrats was on that sheet of paper or something?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Olbermann_defends_Clinton_revokes_Bush_0926.html

This link was sent to me by a friend of mine. If you are a Bush supporter, Clinton hater or Fox news fan, you can skip it, it will neither change your mind nor will you care for it.

It is a video of a Keith Olberman MSNBC rant. I liked it. It was nice to see a MSM talking head gave voice to alot of what I've been feeling without the overt "vote Democrat" crap that anti Bush commentary often is actually about.

Smitopher:

Thanks for the link. Just tonight I was talking to someone and mentioned the Olbermann editorial and said I wished I had a link or something to give to people so they could view it. You are right that committed Republicans like Beachman will not benefit from viewing the video, but those who haven't given alot of thought to the current political situation in this country but should ought to get something out of it as well as those who need a push to fully appreicate how critical the present situation is. I recommend it to all but the committed extreme right-wingers among us.

Finally a real journalist has the balls to say what real Americans should have said a long time ago !! Too bad it was aired on MSNBC and no one saw it. This is one link I hope gets sent to everyone you know. I have already forwarded it to all my friends and relatives.

Olberman called out GW big time . I somehow think he has little respect for Fox "News" or Chris Wallace. I share his opinion in that regard.

I'm not quite up on this thread...I quite literally don't have time for most of this nonsense...but it has occurred to me that some people are making the assumption that there is a positive correlation between:

A) the volume of the rhetoric, and its correctness

B) the percentages of people holding a position and its correctness

etc.

On the second, there seems to be a further assumption that the voices necessarily represent comparative numbers of the membership.

As I clearly don't have access to accurate demographic information on CH membership, I can't say whether or not the last assumption is correct. But it does seem clear to me that a large percentage of members here NEVER speak, so guessing their positions would require clairvoyance. People who hold certain positions are often more motivated to speak on a subject than people who hold the opposing position.

(For example, even those who backed Bush can see that Iraq is a mess and that we are pretty much in a no win situation....this clearly does NOT translate to evidence that Bush lied, for example.... but may make people uncomfortable defending him.)

(Second example, people that believe shoe leather is a vile abuse of the cow's inalienable rights tend to speak up, while those that recognize no bovine right consider it a non-issue and tend to ignore it)

In any case, the issue of numbers/position is irrelevant to its actual correctness....history has demonstrated time after time that the majority can be dead wrong.

As a Libertarian who believes that THE TWO PARTIES ARE IN A CONTEST TO SEE WHO CAN DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTION THE FASTEST, I have tried to stay out of this pointless argument....

What intrigues me more is the nature of the arguments themselves....the ad Hominem attacks...the ad Populum arguments...fallacious arguments are flying right and left.

One thing seems clear....if you beat the drum long enough and loud enough, sooner or later you can get some of the people to dance.

The percentages of people that buy into at least some form of Penman's conspiracy theory {Bush brought down the towers, (or at least allowed it)} is frightening...and polling information suggests they're almost all Democrats...so much for Cat's suggestion of superior intelligence.

If it is indeed true that Club Hombre is more left leaning, I have at least found a far more believable explanation than income levels....Most mongers aren't married.

USA Today has this graph:
_________________________________________________
Wedding bands are golden for GOP

Republicans control congressional districts that have the highest marriage rates; Democrats control those with the lowest. The 25 districts that have the highest and lowest percentage of residents 15 and older who are married:

Highest percentage married

Rank District Party Representative Married

1 Ga. 7 Rep. John Linder 66.1%

2 Tenn. 7 Rep. Marsha Blackburn 65.3%

3 Ga. 6 Rep. Tom Price 65.0%

4 Colo. 6 Rep. Tom Tancredo 64.8%

5 N.J. 5 Rep. Scott Garrett 64.0%

6 Va. 10 Rep. Frank Wolf 63.8%

7 Ill. 13 Rep. Judy Biggert 63.8%

8 Fla. 5 Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite 63.5%

9 Ill. 10 Rep. Mark Kirk 63.4%

10 N.J. 11 Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen 63.4%

11 Ga. 10 Rep. Nathan Deal 63.2%

12 Mo. 2 Rep. Todd Akin 63.0%

13 Va. 11 Rep. Tom Davis 63.0%

14 Texas 31 Rep. John Carter 62.9%

15 Neb. 3 Rep. Tom Osborne 62.4%

16 Ky. 5 Rep. Hal Rogers 62.3%

17 Texas 11 Rep. Mike Conaway 62.2%

18 Ala. 6 Rep. Spencer Bachus 62.2%

19 Ind. 5 Rep. Dan Burton 62.1%

20 Ala. 4 Rep. Robert Aderholt 62.1%

21 N.Y. 3 Rep. Pete King 62.1%

22 Utah 3 Rep. Chris Cannon 62.1%

23 N.J. 7 Rep. Mike Ferguson 62.0%

24 Wash. 8 Rep Dave Reichert 62.0%

25 Ga. 8 Rep. Lynn Westmoreland 61.9%


Lowest percentage married

Rank District Party Representative Married

412 Fla. 23 Dem. Alcee Hastings 43.5%

413 Minn. 5 Dem. Martin Olav Sabo 43.4%

414 Fla. 17 Dem. Kendrick Meek 43.3%

415 N.J. 10 Dem. Donald Payne 42.9%

416 N.Y. 11 Dem. Major Owens 42.6%

417 Ill. 2 Dem. Jesse Jackson Jr. 42.4%

418 Ohio 11 Dem. Stephanie Tubbs Jones 42.1%

419 Ill. 1 Dem. Bobby Rush 42.0%

420 Calif. 53 Dem. Susan Davis 41.4%

421 Calif. 33 Dem. Diane Watson 41.3%

422 Mich. 14 Dem. John Conyers 41.1%

423 Calif. 8 Dem. Nancy Pelosi 40.9%

424 Tenn. 9 Dem. Harold Ford 40.8%

425 Ill. 7 Dem. Danny Davis 40.5%

426 N.Y. 10 Dem. Edolphus Towns 40.5%

427 La. 2 Dem. William Jefferson 39.7%

428 N.Y. 15 Dem. Charles Rangel 38.9%

429 Wis. 4 Dem. Gwen Moore 38.4%

430 N.Y. 16 Dem. Jos Serrano 38.3%

431 Mich. 13 Dem. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick 37.4%

432 Ga. 5 Dem. John Lewis 37.3%

433 Mass. 8 Dem. Michael Capuano 37.2%

434 Pa. 1 Dem. Robert Brady 36.2%

435 Pa. 2 Dem. Chaka Fattah 35.9%

436 D.C. * Dem. Eleanor Holmes Norton 34.5%


Source: USA TODAY analysis of census Bureau data

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-marriage-gap_x.htm#table
_______________________________________________

I thought this was interesting, though not particularly surprising.

I'll make one more observation.

While Bluestravelor's comments are generally well thought out and comparatively even-handed as he tries to stay above the fray, one point is telling.....he has repeatedly shot at Beachman for what he sees as an arrogant or strident style.

I would challenge everyone here to go back and count, line by line, the numbers of ad Hominem attacks, the number of shrill assertions not backed by evidence, etc. by each participant and then try to convince me that Beachman is any more arrogant or strident than several of the left leaning writers. The problem is that people don't quite so clearly hear an abusive tone in a voice with which they agree.

Can someone try to explain to me what on earth Ejack is trying to say?

Olberman looks like he is about cry at anytime.....maybe he is concern that the "right wing" may find his blue suit (stained) hidden in his closet he wore when he gave Clinton a blow job.

Clinton sure didn't reacted the way he did when Meredith Vieira basically asked him the same question in their interview on the Today show a couple of days earlier. Of course she kissed his ass and stroked his ego as the liberal media always does.

http://newsbusters.org/node/7796

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Wallace_%28journalist%29

This was a Democratic ploy to get the base charged up because they are getting desperate seeing the polls shifting for the November elections!

Interest backround on "rightwing Chris Wallace" father Mike Wallace CBS, his stepfather Bill Leonard CBS News President, He was a classmate of AL Gore at Harvard, an assistant to Walter Cronkit and also worked at ABC.

The bottom line is that George Bush will go down as the most inept and incompetent president in US history. He was strategically placed as a candidate for his position via extreme nepotism and has convinced myself and other Republicans that he is not suited for the position and cannot make rational decisions on even the most basic precepts of world and domestic policy. The debacle in Iraq and New Orleans merely scratches the surface of his ineptitude.

Yeah-

New Orleans....the local and state governments priorty was to spend millions of dolllars to get the Superdome ready for the Saints instead of directing the money to those who need it. Where is Jeese Jackson, Sean Penn, the Democrats, and most of all the media and their outrage. Of course it is all Bush's fault!

$185 million spent to repair..... where are their priorities!!!!!!!!

GCL: I think Ejack1's point is that Beachman's posts reflect a hard-right Christian fundamentalist agenda that will ultimately destroy the United States. At least that is what I got out of it.

Actually, it could have meant that. But to be honest, I don't have a clue what his point was either.

(Message edited by LAguy on September 27, 2006)

How's this for clarity....I believe that the level of rational thought exibited by the vast majority of posts in this thread, whether left or right, boarders on Penmanian.

Beachman,

Talk about continueing to dredge up totally unrelated issues....so, a hurricane crushes the FEDERALLY DESIGNED, FUNDED AND BUILT levees, swamping the city, then the Bush administration waits for a few days before starting a relief effort, then they immediatly fuck up the relief effort while waiting on paperwork, and the citizens get spread to the wind....but the real fucking problem is they rebuilt the Superdome instead of something else? All of the suffering in New Orleans would have been prevented simply by not rebuilding the Superdome. Is that what you're saying? That the rebuild is the most important issue?

Beachman exhibits some truly confounding illogic. I must admit I am stunned to learn that Meredith Viera is a tool of the "liberal media." She's such an ideologue.

And ejack, sorry buddy, but the distortion of the Bush administration of the so-called evidence regarding WMDs (i.e., the adminstration's lying about them) has been thoroughly and carefully documented in numerous places. The best and most balanced presentations can be found in George Packer's book, "The Assassin's Gate: America in Iraq," and in the recent book by Thomas Ricks, "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq." Neither book is by an ideologue with an axe to grind, and botrh tell the story by referencing public and leaked documents and with interviews with military and intelligence community professionals involved in the process.

Thought you might like this cartoon:



Thanks, smitopher, for the link. I'd nearly written off the "conservative media" for giving Bush a free pass...

Perhaps even more appropriate to this discussion:

Wow, this thread is into its 4th archive. After skimming through the last week or so, I'm struck by a couple of things.

First, if you happen to support anything approaching half of what has been done, or is being done by the current administration, you are a “simpleton”, a “neo-con”, “narrow-minded”, “dumb”, “stupid”, “easily manipulated”, and a “booger eater” of all things.

I realize that some of you think you are the smartest guys in any room you have ever walked into, and I don’t really know how to engage such arrogance, so I won’t comment on all of you MDs, and JDs, and PHDs.

I will say that this is not a free exchange of ideas and debate where your opinion is actually respected, as someone said so naively a couple of weeks ago. This is a God Damn echo chamber and if you are on the wrong side, you get jumped.

Flame away ...

Arellius, excellent points. That is why I got off of this thread and on to talking about more important things (i.e.pussy). It is more productive. Besides, everyone else on this thread is smarter and has more money than me. Right. Later, AZ

Arellius and Azguy-

You guys hit it on the nail. There is plenty I disagree about with Bush.... with illegal immigration at the top of the list. But for the Democrats to now say that Iraq was a mistake and Bush LIED about WMD's after both the UN and Congress agreed Sadam was trying to aquire, develop WMD'S in addition to the ones the Democrats claimed Sadam had before Bushh ever became President. Just plain politics and both parties put what is best for their parties instead of what is best for the American people.

Rememeber.....Harry Truman was the least popular President during his second term and look how History has played ut with decisions he made!

Hmmm. The UN agreed because Colin Powell gave a speech filled with, as it turns out, factual inaccuracies about WMDs. Remember those pictures of trailers that Powell showed housing WMDs? And how they turned out to contain just a bunch of old non-military equipment?

Congress agreed because of the briefings they were provided by the Administration which were, again, filled with factual errors. The Congress doesn't get a free pass in my book (Dems or Republicans) because it's their job to critically analyze whet the administration presents, and they failed to do this. I hold congressionsal Dems and Repubs responsible for that mistake.

And it's not just the Dems who are saying Iraq is/was a mistake. Read what the military leaders (primarily Repubs) are saying about Iraq. Look at the polls of registered Repubs and their views on Iraq. Republicans want to debate the terrorism issue because it works for them. They are running from Iraq as fast as possible because it is working against them, even with their own base.

Catacony said, "Ah, Ticasonar, back from under the rock he had scuttled to. I had forgotten about you." --Work calls sometimes...and it's a cave...or a boulder...I eat meat, fried at that, and couldn't fit under a rock.

I guess you're tired of playing. OK.

During the days preceding the war, one of my friends who was against invading Iraq asked me what my position was. I said that in principle I thought we had to overthrow Hussein (by military means, i.e., an invasion) because of the WMD issue and the fact we could not let him get nuclear arms (of course, that rationale now applies in greater force to Iran, but in light of the Iraq war the U.S. is now emasculated with respect to dealing with that issue). I added though I couldn't fully support the idea of going to war because I had some serious doubts as to whether Bush and his people had the knowledge, experience, or intelligence to understand the collateral consequences of going to war in Iraq. I specifically mentioned the potential warfare that could break out between the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds; the effect it would have on our standing in the region; and I noted as well the likelihood our going to war would increase the number of terrorists with an eye on the U.S. In this latter regard, I specifically mentioned how Bin Laden apparently turned on the U.S. in a major way after seeing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraq (as I indicated in a post above, although I mistakenly wrote Kuwait rather than Iraq), and that while that war was probably necessary, one still had to be mindful of the lessons learned from that war.

I closed the conversation by stating I sincerely hoped Bush and his people knew what they were doing, and had a plan to minimize these potentially devastating things from happening. Towards the end of the conversation my friend asked, well are you for going to war or against it? I told him I would let him know in two or three years after we had an opporunity to see whether Bush had an effective plan that would mitigate my concerns and lessen the collateral damage an Iraq war would potentially cause. Of course, we now know he had nothing of the sort.

The reason I have refrained from being baited by the argument here over WMDs is because the real crime in my mind is how unprepared the Bush administration was in dealing with these very predictable problems, problems that have now turned the Iraq war into a complete disaster for our country.

I now know that I was misled on the WMD issue as well, although whether Bush intentionally lied, or instead negligently mis-represented the situation to the American and world public, I cannot say. There certainly is now evidence that his administration knew many of the claims made by Colin Powell before the U.N. were unsubstantiated and questionable. I don't know how I could have known this then although some of my friends suspected this although could not tell me why. I'm also simply do not know the degree to which the briefings given to the Democratic leaders were deceptive or straight. While it is true that some Democrats had previously claimed Saddam had WMDs, many, but not all, of these Democratic claims were made before the UN inspectors reported they could find no supporting evidence.

I agree many of the Democrats did not satisfy their oversight responsibilities adequately. Part of the reason for this, and this is not an excuse but just an observation, is in the aftermath of 9/11 they were fearful of the political consequences of appearing weak on national defense. Indeed, while Kerry (who was running for President) supported the resolution authorizing Bush to use force, Al Gore (who was not running) opposed it and the subsequent war. I could be wrong, but during this time period, I don't remember Al Gore stating Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

In any event, rather than focus only on whether Bush lied about WMDs, which I earlier referred to as a side issue, why don't some of you Republicans focus on the failure to send sufficient troops to Iraq and the consequent chaos that resulted (try to put that genie back into the bottle, good luck), the failure to provide sufficient supplies to our troops, the probable pending disaster in Afghanistan that resulted from the shift of resources out of Afghanistan into Iraq; the reasons why the whole world now hates us whereas pre-Bush much of the world respected us; and the near unanimous view of those who have studied the issue that the Iraq war has served to create a new generation of terrorists and has made our country less safe rather than moreso.

The bottom line question is do you guys really think the Iraq war has accomplished anything useful that has warranted the various costs, and do you really believe Bush and his administration was anything but asleep at the wheel during the planning and execution phases?

And yes, Beachman, Hillary Clinton was a friggin' moron to make her comments linking al Qaeda with Saddam.

I believe that this thread is probably representative of a typical day at the house or the senate. The republicans bashing the democrats all day long. Likewise the democrats attacking the republicans. Afterwards both sides claim victory. Which irks the other side and it just starts all over again. The problem is that there is no agreement on anything, and hence no common ground to move forward. Stalemate.

Let's use WMD as an example. At this point, this issue is a thing of the past. Representations were made by the CIA. Representations were made to the UN, other nations, the president, democratic sentaors, republican congressmen, etc. I don't really care who knew what, the larger issue is that there are repercussions and instead of finger pointing, we should be dealing with these issues. We need to get out of the past and into the present.

The two most vocal groups are the hard left wing and the hard right wing, and the country has become polarized and it so evident in this thread.

Bluestraveller: When people start offering me bribes, I mean campaign contributions, for participating in this thread, I will then concede the thread is representative of a typical day at the House or Senate.

Finally, some posts that make some sense. LA, I agree with most of your post. I have said before I dont agree with everything Bush does and I think the war is fucked up, but to put it all on Bush? I dont know, he is not the only guy in Washington and things change, constantly evolving especially war. What was good intel yesterday maybe bad today. I think we did get surprised after the big push. I think (I hope) we had an exit plan, but it got fucked up. That is war. They need to stop trying to save face and fix this shit.

Something to think about, what if Bush went the other way and didnt do shit and come to find out there were WMDs. What would everyone be saying then? I think after the attacks, like was said above, politicians were playing it safe to cover their own ass.

I do think it is time to get out as gracefully as possible. My nephew is a Ranger in Iraq and like he said, how would you react if people were occupying your country and blowing shit up? They were happy we were there at first, but we are like the house guest that wont take the hint and go home.

Even that said, I do not believe we are creating more terrorist. These fuckers don’t see the world like we do. I finally saw some muslim groups finally speaking out and saying fellow muslims are proving the point of some about how violent they are. Like one said the only way some muslims will be happy with the pope again is if he converts.

I think the biggest thing that bugs me is the lack of respect for the president. He may not be everyones favorate guy, especially these days, but he is still our president. Some of the name calling and the personal attacks are unnecessary. Disagree, protest, speak out, but have a little fucking respect. Its the same for Clinton, I was embarrassed at how the R's went after him. Especially for getting a blow job? Are you kidding me? Lets be honest, Hillary does not strike me as all that good in bed. I say we should have given the guy a mulligan on it. Fucking politics. We are being torn apart from the inside, from both sides. Its bullshit.

Bluestraveler hit it right its the extremes (and I am paraphrasing) that are fucking things up. Everyone has got to prove the other guy wrong, kinda like on this thread in fact. In my opinion, the next pres needs to be in the middle to bring everyone back together. Not sure if the extremes will let him (her). So who would that be? McCain? Guliani? LAguy? I know, Jag. He would be perfect. There would never be any need for war in the future, everyone would be too busy reading his trip reports….So, anyone want to throw out some middle of the road guys? OK, I have rambled enough, back to my real life. AZ

PS since I got that off my chest, what the fuck is with Bill O'reilly? I saw a seg that talked about Paris Hiltons new video while I was on the treadmill tonight. Some times he makes sense, but sometimes he just goes way overboard. Just like politics its all bout the ratings.

Azguy, Bluestraveller good posts. Thanks.

Laguy, great post.
I would quibble with only the last part about the world's hatred.

First off, generally love and hatred are emotional responses while respect and disrespect are intellectual. As such, it is quite common to be disrespected yet loved or to be hated but respected. While I, as anyone, likes to be liked, if I had to choose between being loved and being respected I'd generally opt for respect.

I have believed for quite some time that while the world has generally respected us (as a nation) most don't much like us, and haven't for a very long time. What the Iraq war has done is give them something concrete to which to point to justify their long held emotional response.

I'll build my argument with a few personal observations:
________________________________
When I was sixteen I had the privilege of driving a '65 mustang. Being a farm kid, I had been running equipment since I was twelve and was quite comfortable behind the wheel. Frankly, with my driving style that car was a ticket magnet...I have no idea how many times I was stopped. But in the process I began to learn a few things about the nature of cops.

As long as I stayed seated in the car, my average probability of getting a ticket was a little less than 50/50. But if for any reason I was ever outside the car, I was going to get a ticket. I saw numerous times where an officer was frendly enough initially, but upon my following his request to step out his entire demeanor would change. This response was always more pronounced with short cops but could also be seen with average sized cops. Strangely, (before I understood what was happening,) this response was ABSENT in tall cops.

The typical scenario would be....cop stops me....cop has his normal demeanor....I climb out of the car at his request....as I unfold and come to my full height I can see his body tense and stiffen and see the unmistakable scowl appear across his face....cop becomes verbally aggressive, sometimes abusive...I get the ticket.
____________________________________________

When I was twenty I took off time from college to go make some money....physically demanding construction on government contracts that paid very well. Three other guys from my same college got jobs as well. I and another guy were both a little over 6'5" a third was about 6'2" the fourth was only about 5'4" and everyone that knew him was well aware of his little-man complex.

We were working in an area of the country that seemed to be shorter than average anyway, and when the three of us were together, we often drew stares.
I very well remember one Saturday, 1500 miles from home, walking down a mall corridor...the three of us tall guys happened to be walking side by side and up front, about three paces ahead, was the short guy....STRUTTING.
I remember glancing at the other 6'5" guy walking beside me, not a word between us, but we both laughed out loud....it was that obvious.
Little B.. felt big by association.
__________________________________

When I was old enough to get into bars, it didn't take very long to start having drunk short guys coming up trying to draw me into a fights. It happened frequently. I could generally diffuse the situation by talking, but it became quite apparent that this was almost always about size.
_______________________________________

Somewhere along the line I started to notice that the same behaviours seen in individuals could often be observed in entire groups, from clubs to schools to towns, cities, states and even entire countries. Individuals who, as individuals, would never dispay a particular behaviour, could and would display it as part of a particular group....from paranoia, to persecution complex, to Napoleon complex.

Listen to sports talk radio in Portland, OR, when Seattle teams are being discussed, and you will often hear an underlying emotion....you won't hear the same listening to the same shows in Seattle when Portland is being discussed.

A comedians joke illustrates the point....he recounts having a Canadian badger him. "What do Americans really think about us Canadians?"...."Go ahead...be honest....you can tell me...what do you really think about us."

"Well,....we don't."

And there's the rub. It's bad enough to feel small, it's worse when the larger party is dismissive.

And it doesn't always have to be about physical size. The poor resent the rich, the lazy resent the industrious, the uneducated resent the educated. Most people's self esteem is based on comparison, and they resent anyone that makes them feel like less.

Two authors I've read illustrate the point.

Robert Allen, the originator of the Nothing Down real estate investment craze, makes the point that when you decide to begin your process, maintaining a positive attitude is important and that there are certain people with whom you should not be discussing your goals..... Particular close friends and family members who have seen you on a peer level will be sub-conciously threatened by your ambitions and will undermine you. They won't do it on purpose, they think they're just warning you of the dangers. But the fact is that should you succeed, they will feel diminished by comparison, and feel threatened by your even having the audacity to think you might succeed.

R Don Steele, author of "How To Date Young Women, For Men Over 35" warns repeatedly of the ways people will view your success. After giving examples of hostile behaviour by both older females and males his own age he says this..."All you need to know is other men don't want you to succeed, especially if they are married or living with someone. Friendship? Loyalty? Don't count on that stopping any of your older male friends. They want to fuck her in the ass. Further, you only need to know every female's envious and jealous of your young lover, starting with the ex-wife and ending with your secretary."

(On a side note, this is exactly why none of us should share our mongering stories with non-mongers....while they may enjoy hearing them, many will be envious and will resent you for doing things they either can't or won't and you can expect them to be using those very same stories to undermine you later.)

On the national level, I believe that some other countries, most notably the french, have long resented us for saving their asses. They feel a debt that there is simply no way to repay, they feel inferior, they hate us. The french have a Napoleon complex.

It's simple....the U.S. is the most powerful, the weathliest, the most successful political experiment in the history of the planet. While this may inspire admiration and respect, it does not bring love.

There has long been an undercurrent of fear, jealousy and resentment, more pronounced in some counties than others, focused directly at our country, based solely on our wealth and power. Our ill-conceived decision to thumb our noses at those who would like to think of themselves as our peers, most specifically Germany and France, followed by our bumbling management of the war, has undoubtedly caused us to lose respect.

But as for the emotional response, I believe that it was there all the time....Iraq simply gives them a concrete justification for an emotional response they've always had, usually hidden under the surface. We're the big dog...the smaller dogs envy us, fear us and resent us....they always have, they always will.

I'll make a prediction.....In the next few decades, as China's power and influence grows, watch for the same response from US...it'll happen, mark my words.

---

quote:

Ejack1 said
In the next few decades, as China's power and influence grows, watch for the same response from US

---

AZ Guy,

Great post. I'm not sure that the problem is the extremists but the lack of voice for the moderates. Sometimes the words get so harsh that it turns from a discussion into a heavy weight boxing match. The reality is that the extremists do not decide elections. Moderates and/or swing voters that vote based on the merits of the issues.

The country has taken a hard right, and most American people can sense that the executive branch has become overly intrusive. From my view, this is a good thing. The Republicans in 2008 will find a more moderate candidate with more centrist views toward the war on terror, and the balance of power between the three branches of government. Furthermore, the democrats need to bring in somebody that is more centrist than Kerry or Al Gore. Hillary is not it either. I would prefer to see the democrats find a moderate successful governor than pick from the lot of senators and congressmen. If that could happen, then no matter which party wins, things will be better.

That is why I am thinking mcain or guliani. I think people are sick of the bullshit from both sides, then again some people buy into the bullshit from both sides. It depends on your view of the world I guess.

THis isnt a knock on the D's, but would JFK recognize his party? I'll bet if you went back and looked at what a true D represented 40 years ago, that most people would identify with it. AZ

To be honest, I'm not sure Clinton recognizes the Dems. Despite his defense of the party, he is and was pretty moderate in terms of his policy agenda.

Among current Republicans, I probably like Mitt Romney. Among Dems, I'm not at all sure. There are plenty I like, but none that I can think of who are electable.

Mark Warner is the best of the Democrat bunch. He was great as governor of Virginia and is by far the most popular politician in Va right now. Too bad he didn't run against assclown George Allen right now, who's all over the press around the world for calling a campaign worker for Jim Webb (D opponent) a monkey, but he's gearing up for 2008. Fairly similar to Clinton from a political beliefs perspective, got the Republican House of Delegates and Senate to do pretty much what he wanted while he was governor. Good centrist on most issues and is rich, with a business background (telecom) not a law background.

I too thought Bill Clinton was rather moderate as President, and I have had some trouble understanding why he was held in such contempt by the right-wing, contempt which was present before the Monica Lewinsky scandal and therefore was not the result of that scandal.

With regard to Al Gore and/or Hillary Clinton, could someone fill me in (with specifics) on what positions they have taken that earn them the far-left label. Having questionable personalities does not count. LOL

Clinton was a moderate and he is not held in contempt by the republican party. Just the hard right wingers loathe him, and he certainly should not take it personally. Do you remember a common Republican retort was that Clinton just implemented what we had already put in place?

Here's my look at Al Gore and Hillary. I paint Al to the left because his crusade on global warming. This is a distraction from the larger issues facing the nation. It is moot because Al has already stated that he does not plan to run again.

Hillary just seems like a Bill wannabe. But she is very different. She strikes me as being calculating rather than passionate. Very different from Bill.

Let's not forget that Bill was the governor from Arkansas before becoming president. So there's still lots of time for the democrats to come up with a worthy foe.

I really like McCain. There is a sincerity to him that I like, and he can also relate to our troops in Iraq. I also love the fact that he has every reason to despise Bush given his slimey election tactics, but afterwards, has worked very closely with Bush, and lastly, was one of the few Republicans to stand up to Bush on the issue of torture.

I don't call him a flip flopper; I call it being flexible, intelligent, and keeping the interest of the country above his own.

Bluestraveller,

I have enormous respect for your position on things, and your moderate views, but I think I disagree in your characterization of Gore's views on global warming as placing him out on the left wing. My best friend is a climate scientist at MIT, and is as apolitical as it is humanly possible to be. And while he thinks Gore occasionally overstates some findings from his field, he says repeatedly how impressed he is with Gore's reading of the science, and that he's never known a non-scientist to comprehend the work in the field as well as Gore.

It is a "crusade" for Gore, but there's nothing wrong with crusading when something seems as important as global warming. Frankly, I wish we had more politicians as smart as Gore, who cared enough about an issue to become truly expert in it. Most of our politicians in both parties are perfectly happy yammering on about any and all topics ad nauseum, even (maybe especially) when they have zero expertise on the issue.

I can see where to some the issue of global warming is a distraction, but the folks in climate science believe that it's one of those issues that's easy to dismiss because the consequences will fall on our children's children, but that if we don't begin a serious response now, our children's children will have no options left for them to pursue.

I have a couple of concerns with McCain. One is that he's a little old compared to Clinton's age when taking office (very young) and even Bush (kinda young for a President. He's certainly would not be the oldest person to take office but at 72, one of the oldest.

My second concern is that he does seem to pander a bit these days. He was the maverick through the 2004 election and then became a Bush supporter. After what Rove and Company did to him in the 2000 primaries, I just couldn't fathom it. Politicians do it all the time but I think it hurt McCain's rebel image, which truthfully is what attracts a lot of people to his camp.

I could be wrong here, but I would agree that most R's didnt have a problem with Clinton. Most R's are pretty happy if they are making money and not getting taxed up the ass. Maybe some of the R's can address what it was like in the Clinton years. I think the only thing was the R's wanted their guy in the office so they were doing the same old stupid shit that the other party always does when they are not in the white house.

By the way. many years ago I was responsible for running an event for a local campaign. I was at the door greeting people and this old guy came up with this really hot wife and kept trying to talk with me. He wouldnt go away. Me being distracted, making sure everything was going to come off smoothly, I didnt realize it was McCain. He knew what was going on and took it very well. You might call it a "Jag" moment. AZ

Adding to what Branquinho stated about Gore and global warming, if you add the whole issue of dependence on fossil fuel to the equation, which is a part of Gore's overall pitch, I think the issue becomes even more significant. There was a reference above to China becoming the next major world power, and from what I have been reading lately (e.g., Kevin Phillip's recent book, "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century," which I haven't finished yet though) one reason of many for this may well be because China is ahead of us in implementing alternative fuel solutions. Phillips seems to believe that our dependence on oil is largely one of inertia since it has served us so well in the past. But like Britain's earlier dependence on coal, as new technologies make other sources of energy more efficient or otherwise desirable, the world power that has depended on an outmoded form of energy will gradually lose dominance.

Although I don't necessarily agree with all Phillips has to say in his book (which is a bit tedious to read), I think he is on to something. And as to whether Gore's preoccupation with global warming and alternative forms of energy may from one perspective make him look like a leftist of sorts, if one looks at the issue from Phillips' standpoint, attention to the issue of global warming AND dependence on fossil fuels makes good economic business sense, at least long term. In this sense, it is hardly a leftist issue. And I haven't even touched on the implications for how weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels would change the equation in the Middle East.

I am still waiting to hear about which issues define Hillary Clinton as a leftist. As before, I noted she might not have the greatest personality for the presidency or otherwise, but that doesn't relate to whether she is a leftist, moderate, or conservative.

Azguy: Your story about McCain lends some credence to your handle. LOL

Wow! Great thoughts by everyone. Stimulating people's intellect rather than challenging it.

It is undisputable that the earth is getting warmer. One day I was pondering this entire issue while I was in San Diego at 6 pm going north on the I5 from La Jolla to Carlsbad. It took about an hour 20 minutes, and it is 8 - 10 lanes of cars in front and back. Here's an interesting piece by Rolling Stone on the subject.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency

The question is what can be done about it. And even if there is a practical solution (which I don't believe there is), it would never get through Congress even if we had a president supporting it.

I have already come to the conclusion that this is a game that we (the USA) are going to lose. It would be highly desirable if this were the nation's #1 priority, but the sad fact is that we have more immediate issues. I believe there are two higher priorities and they are somewhat interrelated:

1. War on terror. We need to go back to the drawing board on this one. Iraq is a disaster from a financial standpoint and also from a foreign policy standpoint. We have close to no international support for this escapade, and therefore we are paying all the bills. The key is our intrusive foreign policy. Richard Nixon (despite his other flaws) was the father of building many of the bridges to other nations, which at this point we have slowly destroyed.

We need to start rebuilding our alliances. There is one big change I would like to see in our foreign policy. We need to stop sticking our noses in other country's business. Bush has pushed this to the limit, and other country's find it intrusive and objectionable. eJack wrote some interesting prose about the distinction/trade off between respect and affection, but I think the goal should be both.

2. The other issue is the role of the executive branch in government. Executive branch has gotten too big and it is impacting the budget, and also the decision making process of the country. A good example is stem cell research. I really don't care what the president's opinion is about this. We have a judicial branch (that determines the definition of abortion) and a legislative branch (which represents what the people want). Why should one guy get to over ride this?

If we don't address these two big issues in the next 6 years, global warming won't really matter. It's not that I don't agree, it's a matter of priorities.

Man I'm rambling. Sorry

Just when I was contemplating hijacking this thread with yet another gut-spilling chronicle about household appliance tragedies, purgative reactions of orgasmic brasilieras, or a folksy little narative about the customs in my corner of the world...the thread became very interesting!

I will keep my 15 watt brain out of this and read and learn. There is another thread on this board that is particularly nasty and is marked for my intervention.

(Message edited by blissman on September 29, 2006)