[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

We are and have been in the midst of some very weird national karma. Two major disasters, with a fückwit at the helm.

Thanx for your insight.

[Moderator]

We all saw what happened to Cheney when he didn't fake it...Go fcuk yourself Cheney...go fcuk yourself.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

There's only one thing more important than getting aid to the victims of Katrina, and that's looking good doing it. Or looking like you're doing anything at all.

Photo ops can serve a purpose, to one degree or another. On the other hand, photo ops which serve as nothing more than good PR for the Prez at a time like this are despicable and indicative of the lack of character and leadership ability by the current inhabitant of the ovaltine office.


More here.

We are and have been in the midst of some very weird national karma. Two major disasters, with a fückwit at the helm.

Coulda been 4 major disasters had W not done the good job that he has! And don't fall into the Caine Mutiny trap.

By dwelling on the shortcomings of your leader and undermining his command, when the time comes and you need him to perform and do a good job for the American people, will he perform or will all his underpinnings, his reserves of fortitude be gone eroded away for your selfish, petty and short sighted whimsy?

Maybe you've already fallen into the trap.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by mojo2

By dwelling on the shortcomings of your leader and undermining his command, when the time comes and you need him to perform and do a good job for the American people, will he perform or will all his underpinnings, his reserves of fortitude be gone eroded away for your selfish, petty and short sighted whimsy?

How typically Orwellian of you.

News flash: The Katrina disaster that went practically unanswered by the Feds for 4-5 days was a time when we needed him to perform and do a good job for the American people. The time did come (again).

Apparently this time doesn't count and I would be a better patriot if I just look the other way and hope for better next time.

Or better yet, maybe his low approval rating will inspire him to engage the Mother of All Photo-Ops, in which he is videotaped via night-vision with Paris Hilton in a hotel room while exclaiming "Hilty, you're doing a heckuva job!"

By dwelling on the shortcomings of your leader and undermining his command,

"Shortcomings..." I'd remind you that it's not as if he made a social faux pas by dipping his crumpet in his tea before the lady of the house was seated.

Again you're saying "fall in line". "Follow the commander no matter what level or form of incompetency he displays". No. That's not debatable and practically sinks to the level of argument for the sake of argument.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Again you're saying "fall in line". "Follow the commander no matter what level or form of incompetency he displays". No. That's not debatable and practically sinks to the level of argument for the sake of argument.

Funny, I just put what Mojo said through Babelfish, converting from partisan speak to plain english, and I got:

"Trust the government, and next time you won't get burnt. I'm not sure why you should trust the government, but they are such good folks they deserve your trust, so I feel compelled to defend them".

Mojo, let this one go. The Republicans aren't immortal, they make mistakes. This was one of those times.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

How typically Orwellian of you.

News flash: The Katrina disaster that went practically unanswered by the Feds for 4-5 days was a time when we needed him to perform and do a good job for the American people. The time did come (again).

Apparently this time doesn't count and I would be a better patriot if I just look the other way and hope for better next time.

Or better yet, maybe his low approval rating will inspire him to engage the Mother of All Photo-Ops, in which he is videotaped via night-vision with Paris Hilton in a hotel room while exclaiming "Hilty, you're doing a heckuva job!"



"Shortcomings..." I'd remind you that it's not as if he made a social faux pas by dipping his crumpet in his tea before the lady of the house was seated.

Again you're saying "fall in line". "Follow the commander no matter what level or form of incompetency he displays". No. That's not debatable and practically sinks to the level of argument for the sake of argument.

Actually, you've opened an interesting bait well.

The opportunity where the President might have done better WAS Katrina. So, the damage from your, (Yes, BlueSky, YOUR, speaking personally...nah, jk!) criticism has already been suffered and you aren't even registering the fact that it has happened. (and your KIND...heh, heh!)

I'm sleepy and want to get some zz's and also want to watch agassi v federer and write a post putting you in your place. As the third would be most difficult of the three, I'll do it last.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Funny, I just put what Mojo said through Babelfish, converting from partisan speak to plain english, and I got:

"Trust the government, and next time you won't get burnt. I'm not sure why you should trust the government, but they are such good folks they deserve your trust, so I feel compelled to defend them".

Mojo, let this one go. The Republicans aren't immortal, they make mistakes. This was one of those times.

Photo opping is an important tool in governing. It's important to me as a citizen and it should be to you, too.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Photo opping is an important tool in governing. It's important to me as a citizen and it should be to you, too.

It's important in sending a message to the 90% of Americans who are not immersed in politics. For the other 10% (of which we are both included), I couldn't care less about what photos the president poses for.

[spauldingg]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Photo opping is an important tool in governing. It's important to me as a citizen and it should be to you, too.

Maybe, when appropriate, and in an appropriate manner, I might agree with you. But if 50 firefighters waylaid for at least half a day could have saved just one American Citizens life, then no. The Photo Op was meaningless, empty, and evil. Especially to that one American Citizen who may have died for it. (And, yes, the odds are that fifty firefighters would have saved at least one person that day.)

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Photo opping is an important tool in governing. It's important to me as a citizen and it should be to you, too.

No. Not when 50 firemen are diverted from their JOBS to pose...
Not when the mere presence of Laura Bush shuts down a a functioning shelter for EIGHT HOURS because of "security concerns".

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

It's important in sending a message to the 90% of Americans who are not immersed in politics. For the other 10% (of which we are both included), I couldn't care less about what photos the president poses for.

And THAT, dear reader, is a perfect example of the democratic, left winger, liberal's attitudes.

THEY don't care about you. "YOU don't count!"

Readers, the President thinks you are important. THAT's why he bothers with photo ops. You need to know he's doing the job. You don't want a written report. You have your own business or occupation or family to worry about.

To him, YOU ARE THE REASON HE GETS UP IN THE MORNING.

To besson3c, you are, 'THOSE people.'

[spauldingg]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Readers, the President pretends you are important. THAT's why he bothers with photo ops. You need to know he pretends to be doing the job. You don't want a written report. You have your own business or occupation or family to worry about.

To him, Haliburton is THE REASON HE GETS UP IN THE MORNING.

To besson3c, you are, 'one of THOSE people who gets it.'

Fixified

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

No. Not when 50 firemen are diverted from their JOBS to pose...
Not when the mere presence of Laura Bush shuts down a a functioning shelter for EIGHT HOURS because of "security concerns".

Going off on a tangent here. I hate that although Hillary Clinton is seen as a fiercely independent and strong woman, she is sometimes characterized as a cold bitch. To me, Laura Bush just seems like a subservient cookie-making wife.

Perhaps my perception of her is skewed. I will admit freely and openly that I don't know much about her.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And THAT, dear reader, is a perfect example of the democratic, left winger, liberal's attitudes.

THEY don't care about you. "YOU don't count!"

Readers, the President thinks you are important. THAT's why he bothers with photo ops. You need to know he's doing the job. You don't want a written report. You have your own business or occupation or family to worry about.

To him, YOU ARE THE REASON HE GETS UP IN THE MORNING.

To besson3c, you are, 'THOSE people.'

Whatever Mojo, this is cryptic, as are several of your posts. I was saying that I personally don't care about his photo ops, and I was assuming that many in that aforementioned 10% population would likewise care little about his photos, as we read enough to make our own opinions that aren't completely swayed by an insincere, carefully politically crafted image.

why do your posts have to be so indirect and cryptic? Why can't you come out and say what it is that you really want to say in a more direct fashion, rather than making us work so hard to figure out what it is you are trying to say?

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by besson3c

why do your posts have to be so indirect and cryptic? Why can't you come out and say what it is that you really want to say in a more direct fashion, rather than making us work so hard to figure out what it is you are trying to say?

Actually I find it rather easy. I just ignore the laser show and speak to the man behind the curtain. I speak to where he's coming from, and that's apparent enough. No 'fense mo.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Whatever Mojo, this is cryptic, as are several of your posts. I was saying that I personally don't care about his photo ops, and I was assuming that many in that aforementioned 10% population would likewise care little about his photos, as we read enough to make our own opinions that aren't completely swayed by an insincere, carefully politically crafted image.

why do your posts have to be so indirect and cryptic? Why can't you come out and say what it is that you really want to say in a more direct fashion, rather than making us work so hard to figure out what it is you are trying to say?

Haha! I would have thought you libs would have best understood the process on display in my, as you call it, "cryptic" post.

Although fatigue also contributed to making the comminication what it was, I recognize, after a nice snooze and some thought after reading your and BlueSky's posts, that I was doing what I accuse you guys of doing. Letting something other than my brain do the thinking.

And, with that I'm able to convey to you the sensations about that experience.

FWIW.

It was as though we'd been communicating, up until then, as though we were leaders at a summit meeting. My policy and strategy and communications and gestures vs. your policy and strategy and communications and gestures until you said something which indicated an important new understanding.

I felt as though one of my staff rushed to hand me an important message about you and though the message was hurried and hadn't been processed through the brain, it had to be acted upon in that moment.

Your post made an important and noteworthy distinction between YOU (representing those who don't support the President) and the President (who represents the people of the USA.)

Your post was VERY revealling. You see yourself as a member of some sort of elite 'no-telligentsia," and in some kind of position of superiority over the people of the US and the people who support the President or even those who don't support GWB.

"The common people MAY need photo-ops, but I have no such need and I say the photo-op is BS..." is how I see your statement.

You are putting yourself ABOVE the citizenry of the USA, and rather than assuming THEIR needs are what's important, you see them as, what...? Cattle?

As eliteist as I may ACT on these boards, I think you will see in ALL my actions and utterances a DEEP regard for the people of this country and a deep respect for THEIR sensibilities and their welfare...and why?

Because I recognize myself as being a member of the whole. I can no more separate myself from the American people as I can remove my hand from my body. And no way that I would even THINK of this. I am an American in my heart, mind and being. And that is why I support President Bush. He may have his human flaws but there is NEVER any doubt that his orientation is American and that he thinks of the American people's welfare and that he holds the American people in high regard and respects the citizenry.

The same attitude that assured Kerry's defeat in last years' election is on display in your eye opening statement.

You are NOT one of us. You can't understand US the way the President does because you see yourself as separate, as different as better in some way. Maybe that's why your ilk acts so divisively in regards to your politics.

You aren't really US...you are better, so you think.

And you would have the American people buy into your philosophy of

"giving THEM cake" via more taxes to fund more government programs to pacify THEM, to keep THEM satisfied so WE can do what's in OUR interests and it will be ok for them. Hell, what do they know or care?

Hell, you must be thinking to yourself, well actually you outright SAID SO in your post...

"The people don't need photo ops because I say so!"

And, now that I think about it, besson3c ARE YOU EVEN A UNITED STATES' VOTER???

You're Canadian, aren't you?

Hope that's not too cryptic fer ya.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Actually I find it rather easy. I just ignore the laser show and speak to the man behind the curtain. I speak to where he's coming from, and that's apparent enough. No 'fense mo.

No offense taken, BlueSky. I was just having a 'liberal' moment!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Haha! I would have thought you libs would have best understood the process on display in my, as you call it, "cryptic" post.

Although fatigue also contributed to making the comminication what it was, I recognize, after a nice snooze and some thought after reading your and BlueSky's posts, that I was doing what I accuse you guys of doing. Letting something other than my brain do the thinking.

And, with that I'm able to convey to you the sensations about that experience.

FWIW.

It was as though we'd been communicating, up until then, as though we were leaders at a summit meeting. My policy and strategy and communications and gestures vs. your policy and strategy and communications and gestures until you said something which indicated an important new understanding.

I felt as though one of my staff rushed to hand me an important message about you and though the message was hurried and hadn't been processed through the brain, it had to be acted upon in that moment.

Your post made an important and noteworthy distinction between YOU (representing those who don't support the President) and the President (who represents the people of the USA.)

Your post was VERY revealling. You see yourself as a member of some sort of elite 'no-telligentsia," and in some kind of position of superiority over the people of the US and the people who support the President or even those who don't support GWB.

"The common people MAY need photo-ops, but I have no such need and I say the photo-op is BS..." is how I see your statement.

You are putting yourself ABOVE the citizenry of the USA, and rather than assuming THEIR needs are what's important, you see them as, what...? Cattle?

As eliteist as I may ACT on these boards, I think you will see in ALL my actions and utterances a DEEP regard for the people of this country and a deep respect for THEIR sensibilities and their welfare...and why?

Because I recognize myself as being a member of the whole. I can no more separate myself from the American people as I can remove my hand from my body. And no way that I would even THINK of this. I am an American in my heart, mind and being. And that is why I support President Bush. He may have his human flaws but there is NEVER any doubt that his orientation is American and that he thinks of the American people's welfare and that he holds the American people in high regard and respects the citizenry.

The same attitude that assured Kerry's defeat in last years' election is on display in your eye opening statement.

You are NOT one of us. You can't understand US the way the President does because you see yourself as separate, as different as better in some way. Maybe that's why your ilk acts so divisively in regards to your politics.

You aren't really US...you are better, so you think.

And you would have the American people buy into your philosophy of

Hell, you must be thinking to yourself, well actually you outright SAID SO in your post...

"The people don't need photo ops because I say so!"

And, now that I think about it, besson3c ARE YOU EVEN A UNITED STATES' VOTER???

You're Canadian, aren't you?

Hope that's not too cryptic fer ya.

Not cryptic, but extremely wordy.

I don't think I'm some sort of elite mind or something, I just know I'm in that 10% of people who are immersed and play close attention to politics. I don't claim to have some special insight that others lack, I just take the time to be informed. Others chose not to.

What I was trying to say was, the other 90% of the population receive fragments of information via osmosis throughout the course of their days. There really is very little one can do to manufacturer a message to these people, they are going to gravitate to what they want to believe, perhaps are pre-disposed to, whatever. Sometimes a photo will do this, you're right.

The point is, they still don't have a complete and accurate picture of politics because they don't take the time to immerse themselves in politics like we do. This is just something I've grown to accept.

By the way, if you want me to respond to your future posts, I ask you to stop making generalizations and beginning posts with "you libs ____". If you respect me, please stop this. I do not appreciate having labels assigned to me this way (not that I consider myself a registered loyal Liberal, but I know you're addressing me with this label). Thank you!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

No offense taken, BlueSky. I was just having a 'liberal' moment!

This is exactly the kind of generalization I dislike.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

This is exactly the kind of generalization I dislike.

Why do you think I was laughing? List all the possibilities that occur to you as to WHY I would post that and then LOL.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Not cryptic, but extremely wordy.

I don't think I'm some sort of elite mind or something, I just know I'm in that 10% of people who are immersed and play close attention to politics. I don't claim to have some special insight that others lack, I just take the time to be informed. Others chose not to.

What I was trying to say was, the other 90% of the population receive fragments of information via osmosis throughout the course of their days. There really is very little one can do to manufacturer a message to these people, they are going to gravitate to what they want to believe, perhaps are pre-disposed to, whatever. Sometimes a photo will do this, you're right.

The point is, they still don't have a complete and accurate picture of politics because they don't take the time to immerse themselves in politics like we do. This is just something I've grown to accept.

By the way, if you want me to respond to your future posts, I ask you to stop making generalizations and beginning posts with "you libs ____". If you respect me, please stop this. I do not appreciate having labels assigned to me this way (not that I consider myself a registered loyal Liberal, but I know you're addressing me with this label). Thank you!

Yet ANOTHER example of liberal mentality. When do ANY Bush supporters try to change people's method of expression? We don't.

We may disagree with WHAT you are saying and ardently let this be known. But we don't try to manage your expression.

I make statements as quick quips, tongue-in-cheek asides, policy statements, tutorials, exposes and etc. Please reign in your LIBERAL tendency to think you can/should manage how people express themselves.

If you read my posts, you read them. If you don't, you don't. If you choose to reply, fine. If you don't, fine. If you put me on "ignore," oh well...

As far as my calling you a LIBERAL, you can't see it, besson3c. You are a cliche LIBERAL but think you are some kind of elite liberal hybrid. Liberal-HEAVYWEIGHT-elitist-moderate-REASONABLE-progressive or something. HA!

As I have said before, we can only partially and only sometimes accurately self describe. And though you deny being a LIB, that doesn't mean it's not true. I call you a lib because it helps me to think of you in that way. I think it also helps any readers recognize your true sensibilities, lest they think you are so 'nice.'

In a world filled with every possible variation of the liberal or the conservative philosophy, at heart you are always either a liberal or a conservative.

I don't believe I'm a hard line conservative, but I own up to the label, "conservative." I am also ok with those who might find me to be another shade of conservative gray. But the core is conservative.

YOU, on the other hand, have a problem with being associated with the term, Liberal. Yet, in this world of shades of gray, you are a liberal because you are not a conservative. One or the other. One or the other.

I also know that people seldom see themselves as bad guys. I bet a CERTAIN Germanic dictator responsible for terrible deeds didn't think he was such a bad guy. Likewise, I don't think Liberals see themselves as bad people. (Not to EVEN compare the levels of damage, evil or danger between the dictator and Liberals, but to illustrate the point.)

Candy, (all refined sugars) causes tooth decay, diabetes and other awful health problems and contributes to hundreds of thousands of deaths per year. Yet, it's ok with us because we LIKE candy and sweets. How bad can sugar really be? It doesn't SEEM so bad.

That was the dynamic which explained a certain "fellatio enjoying" President. Well, how bad could he be? He seems like such a nice guy. But years from now we'll be still realizing the damage he did to this country.

By the way, the cheating President also used the Photo op as a tool to keep the public informed of the things he should have been doing. Too bad there were no photo ops of the things he SHOULDN'T have been doing.

(Oh, and SHAME ON YOU ALL for not having compassion for the intern who was scandalized by the President of the United States and in the MSM of the World and who relied on the President to keep her SAFE from all of this and should have, at LEAST, protected her reputation, but who covered his OWN ass and threw her under the bus and who is now nothing but a laughing stock. What did SHE do to deserve all of this besides indulge a youthful romantic feeling?)

So, in dealing with people who aren't such bad guys on the surface, but whose beliefs are somewhat threatening to AMERICA's security and/or well being, I think it's helpful to make it clear to the casual visitor that you are a LIBERAL as opposed to a CONSERVATIVE.

BTW, I'd think you would be proud of the Liberal base you promote but publicly deny.

Why is that, besson3c?

Oh, and you CONVEEEEENIENTLY ignored the question of your nationality.

You deny being a LIBERAL. How about being Canadian? Certainly THAT'S a good thing, right?

[mojo2]

Here's a quote from chabig in the thread asking for comments two days before the anniversary of 9/11.
[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by chabig

I was simply replying to what I considered to be an over-the-line statement, and in my haste I probably stepped into over generalization. However, it does seem as though many on the left:

- would rather see us fail in Iraq than succeed
- are more concerned with protecting the rights of terrorists than with protecting US citizens
- will go to any length to attack Bush even if it means taking a position opposed to best interest of the United States

Chris

[besson3c]

Thank you for respecting my wishes Mojo. You're a class act.

I guess you'll be ignored from now on.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Thank you for respecting my wishes Mojo. You're a class act.

I guess you'll be ignored from now on.

Well, no offense but if you are really this sensitive about being labeled, maybe you shouldn't be hanging out in a political forum.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, no offense but if you are really this sensitive about being labeled, maybe you shouldn't be hanging out in a political forum.

I'm not hurt by it, I just find it irritating and small minded.

[cavepainter]

Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell (1903 - 1950), 1946

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Thank you for respecting my wishes Mojo. You're a class act.

I guess you'll be ignored from now on.

Ahhhh, so now you shall promote me to be included with the remaining 90% of Americans you seem to feel are beneath you but whom you would make decisions for?

If THAT isn't an example of liberalism in action, what is?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, no offense but if you are really this sensitive about being labeled, maybe you shouldn't be hanging out in a political forum.

It reminds me of the dynamics behind the Clayton Bigsby skit. He denies something about himself that everybody else can see.

(I'm not saying anyone is a kkk member or sympathizer or even black --other than myself)

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/013877.php
August 19, 2004 Clayton Bigsby Would Be Proud
From News of the Weird:

Ms. Courtney Mann, the head of the Philadelphia chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of White People, who worked as a tax preparer and was a single mother, was rebuffed in an attempt to join a Ku Klux Klan-sponsored march in Pittsburgh in April 1997. Though she had been in the NAAWP for at least four years, the Klan turned her down because she is black. Said the Grand Dragon, incredulously: "She wanted to stay at my house (during rally weekend). She's all confused, man. I don't think she knows she's black."
Life, satire inch closer.
Posted by Radley Balko on August 19, 2004 | TrackBack

http://www.thecomedychannel.com.au/w...ils.aspx?s=171

Chappelle's Show
The series features Chappelle in such outrageous sketches as Clayton Bigsby, a blind, white supremacist who, unbeknownst to him, is black;

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Ahhhh, so now you shall promote me to be included with the remaining 90% of Americans you seem to feel are beneath you but whom you would make decisions for?

If THAT isn't an example of liberalism in action, what is?

You're confused because all you've done is blow up things he's said way out of proportion, twisted his arguments, and put words in his mouth. No wonder you don't understand what he means.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

You're confused because all you've done is blow up things he's said way out of proportion, twisted his arguments, and put words in his mouth. No wonder you don't understand what he means.

No, not quite, crab.

As opposed to some folks, I really pay attention to some posters here and over time and a number of posts I begin to form impressions of a person and where they stand and how they think. Sometimes I'm more right than at other times. But, nonetheless, over time I came to see besson3c as a smart, clever, talented very nice Canadian who has a unique ability to find the middle ground on most any subject. And with that, an ability to make people smile while coming together, finding accord where there once was none.

An admirable set of traits, eh?

However, there are certain things in life that are non-negotiable. National safety and the survival of the US are two of those things for me.

And while besson3c may be able to bring two sides together to agree on the issue of whether Certs is a candy mint or a breath mint or such things, there is NO PLACE in my mind for negotiating on something like, let's say for example, the Cinders.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE used here to illustrate the point...

IMO besson3c saw that movement as a harmless expression of grief by mournful friends and family members of deceased warriors and an attempt to stop the bloodshed in Iraq, to bring ALL our boys and girls home immediately and to live happily ever after. besson3c saw this as strictly a matter of free speech and anti-war.

Certainly no one ESPECIALLY the right wing CONSERVATIVES could oppose FREE SPEECH, right?

And no good hearted person with ANY amount of heart, soul or humanity could be against PEACE, could they?

Well, the answer to both questions are a qualified, "YES, THEY COULD."

If you are backing out of your driveway and I'm standing outside giving you the all clear and you trust me but because I didn't see the toddler in the path of your car, you hit him then all I can say is "I'm sorry...I didn't see him. I didn't know."

Well, the right wing conservatives have been screaming about the dangers while besson3c continued to say, in effect that Sheehan's protest isn't that bad. What harm could it do?

Besson3c was, in essence encouraging other Americans to believe there was no harm in the protest.

What besson3c and others of his ilk can't see and won't believe is that the terrorists are DEPENDING on his kind of subversive attitudes to help erode confidence in the Bush Administration. And so the enemy is encouraged to outlast us. They will wait and with every protest slogan they think, "ahhh, comrades! With your assistance we might win!"

Looky here...

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...ea=sa&ID=SA603

Special Alert - No. 6
January 23, 2003 No.6

Editor of Iranian Conservative Government Daily Attacks President Bush and Calls on Muslim Youth to Launch Martyrdom Operations Against the U.S.
The following are excerpts from an editorial by Editor Hussain Shariatmadari that appeared in Iran's conservative daily, Kayhan:[1]

"Today, the majority of the peoples of America and Europe understand that Bush's personality is like [that of] one of the millions of vagabonds and bastards seen all over the world, particularly in America. Had he been born 150 years ago, and had he put a six-shooter on his belt, and had he robbed and killed the passengers of stage coaches traveling on the unguarded dusty mountainous roads in those days – if this kind of vagabond bastard had appeared [wearing] a sheriff's uniform… someone would have come to give him some bullets in the chest, ending his miserable life and saving [the taxpayer from paying] the money to hire the sheriff [and] preventing massacres. But what about today?"

"'Why drop bombs? Drop Bush from an airplane'… 'Bush is a fascist,' 'Bush is Hitler,' 'Bush is a war criminal'… 'Bush is stupid,' 'Bush is retarded,' 'Bush is insane.' These are slogans said daily by millions of people in America and Europe…"

"[The] great majority of Muslim people, particularly the young ones in Islamic countries, wait impatiently for American military action, because the stupidity of Bush and his gang and the massacre of millions of innocent Muslims [in Iraq]… will spark the same reaction [as in Palestine] and encourage young Muslims in other countries to take revenge on the American military."

"…Today, hundreds of young Palestinians are seeking martyrdom. They have written their names on the long list of Jihad, and they await [their] turn.There will be great opportunities to take revenge upon the American military, [and] this will be easier than the revenge [sought by] the Palestinians. Why miss the opportunity?"

"In the event of an American attack, the Muslim masses will join this divine and holy war. Lebanon and Palestine are two clear examples of this."

"…Can America stand in the way of people seeking Shehada [martyrdom] in God's way? Will the seekers of martyrdom get their wish because of the American presence in the region?"

"Imam Khomeini said: 'A nation that seeks Shehada is unfettered.'"

[1] Kayhan Daily, (Iran), January 21, 2003.

Ok, so we have an example of besson3c unconsciously acting in support of this country's enemy. Using his considerable powers of persuasionand conciliation in a manner he can't see is harmful.

Then, we have repeated attempts to suggest ways of thinking, acting or being for us Americans based on besson3c's fence mending points of view. Bush may not be a devil in besson3c's but in that very clever and subtle Canadian way he erodes support for President Bush without drawing anyone's ire. Like refined sugar kills, so does besson3c erode support in a way that can have SERIOUS results but you enjoy the process all the way to the end!

Then, when criticising the President's having 50 recovery personnel (out of tens of thousands) take a few hours away from their grizzly tasks to, instead, pose for necessary photo ops, besson3c shows his true colors by letting it slip that he considers himself as part of a small elite minority who doesn't NEED a photo op.

Well,...

1) HE'S not American.

2) He doesn't see himself as an average American. He sees himself as a member of an elite minority.

3) He had to backtrack and amend his statement saying he didn't think photo ops were important. Now, you'll see he says it's important for SOME folks. Which was the point in the first place. If it's important for the MAJORITY of Americans, then it's important.

4) The revelation of besson3c's real attitude, a superior attitude will be seen in all his posts if you just keep an eye open for it.

5) If someone doesn't consider MY needs as important as THEIRS then why should I listen to their advice?

The danger that besson3c poses is one of coming in 'under our radars' looking all friendly and witty and reasonable. But that's why I go on so about besson3c. He can say and do as he wishes, I just want people to be aware of what's going on that might escape their notice.

And, for the record, I MAY be wrong. But I think I'm spot on. However, I would have each of you make up your own minds.

Don't take my word for it.

[besson3c]

Summary: I'm picking on his hero, so I'm a danger to the world. Does anybody here actually read his essays?

[cavepainter]

Cindy Sheehan reminded me of that lone Chinese in front of the tank in Tianammen Square right away.

Patriots?

Well, folks, we got this here Patroit Act....
I call it the Eric Blair Memorial Act.

Don't question Fearless Leader, Bullwinkle!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Summary: I'm picking on his hero, so I'm a danger to the world. Does anybody here actually read his essays?

Here's an analysis of the final scene of the film, "The Caine Mutiny."

http://www.filmsite.org/cain2.html


In the conclusion of the film, the officers (minus Queeg) celebrate the successful defense and acquittal. Maryk is cleared of the charges of mutiny. He questions Keefer's attendance at the party: "I didn't think you'd have the guts to come around." Keefer replies: "I didn't have the guts not to."

A drunken, sarcastic, and sneering Greenwald who admits to a "guilty conscience," admits why he took the foul case: "I defended you, Steve, because I found the wrong man was on trial - so I torpedoed Queeg for you. I had to torpedo him. And I feel sick about it." He praises Queeg's earlier service record in the 30s, while berating the others (and himself) in a prosecutorial tone for showing uncaring ignorance of those who had defended their country:

Greenwald: When I was studying law, and Mr. Keefer here was writing his stories, and you, Willie, were tearing up the playing fields of dear old Princeton, who was standing guard over this fat, dumb, happy country of ours, eh? Not us. Oh, no! We knew you couldn't make any money in the service. So who did the dirty work for us? Queeg did! And a lot of other guys, tough, sharp guys who didn't crack up like Queeg.
Keith: But no matter what, Captain Queeg endangered the ship and the lives of the men.
Greenwald: He didn't endanger anybody's life! You did! All of you! You're a fine bunch of officers.


He criticizes Maryk and the other officers for not preserving military integrity and supporting Queeg as captain when he needed their loyalty and sympathy after the dye-marking incident:

Greenwald: Tell me, Steve, after the Yellowstain business, Queeg came to you guys for help and you turned him down, didn't you?
Maryk: Yes, we did.
Greenwald: You didn't approve of his conduct as an officer. He wasn't worthy of your loyalty. So you turned on him. You ragged him. You made up songs about him. If you'd given Queeg the loyalty he needed, do you suppose the whole issue would have come up in the typhoon?


Greenwald's major scorn and recrimination, however, is reserved for the deceitful, manipulative and cowardly Keefer ("the man who should have stood trial") - "the Caine's favorite author, the Shakespeare whose testimony nearly sunk us all." He confronts the understated Keefer as the evil influence and "real author" behind the entire mutiny:

You ought to read his testimony. He never even heard of Captain Queeg!...Queeg was sick. He couldn't help himself. But you - you're real healthy. Only you didn't have one-tenth the guts that he had...I want to drink a toast to you, Mr. Keefer. From the beginning, you hated the Navy, and then you thought up this whole idea, and you managed to keep your skirts nice and starched and clean, even in the court martial. Steve Maryk will always be remembered as a mutineer. But you! You'll publish your novel, you'll make a million bucks, you'll marry a big movie star, and, for the rest of your life, you'll live with your conscience, if you have any. Now, here's to the real author of the Caine mutiny. Here's to you, Mr. Keefer.


And after the mock toast, he throws his champagne [another yellow-stained marker] in Keefer's face, and then offers an outspoken challenge:

If you wanna do anything about it, I'll be outside. I'm a lot drunker than you are - so it'll be a fair fight.

He may be a hero. He may not be a hero. But to erode his effectiveness doesn't hurt you so much because you're a Canadian living here in the US, but it could hurt US. We NEED him to do a good job for us.

Like Capt. Queeg might have performed better had he the support of the crew, President Bush deserves our support. Not so much for HIS sake, but for OURS.

You don't care about 90% of the Americans, and you aren't American so you aren't included in the previous sentence.

Why not talk about the new Governor General, eh? Boy, that CBC sure is a good training ground for Governors General, isn't it?

[goMac]

: sigh :

Here is a 30 second version of this thread:

Liberals: Bush is staging the relief efforts for photo ops
Conservatives: No he isn't.
Liberals: Yes he is. Here's proof.
Conservatives: We don't want to talk about that anymore. That makes Bush look bad. Let's talk about the mayor instead!
Liberals: We're not talking about the mayor. Can we stay on topic here? The mayor has nothing to do with the photo ops.
Conservatives: Did you know Kerry was also a bad candidate?
Liberals: What does that have to do with this?
Conservatives: Lets not worry about actually feeding people and let the man have his photo ops.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

: sigh :

Here is a 30 second version of this thread:

Liberals: Bush is staging the relief efforts for photo ops
Conservatives: No he isn't.
Liberals: Yes he is. Here's proof.
Conservatives: We don't want to talk about that anymore. That makes Bush look bad. Let's talk about the mayor instead!
Liberals: We're not talking about the mayor. Can we stay on topic here? The mayor has nothing to do with the photo ops.
Conservatives: Did you know Kerry was also a bad candidate?
Liberals: What does that have to do with this?
Conservatives: Lets not worry about actually feeding people and let the man have his photo ops.

goMac's post shows why Photo Ops are important.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac

: sigh :

Here is a 30 second version of this thread:

Liberals: Bush is staging the relief efforts for photo ops
Conservatives: No he isn't.
Liberals: Yes he is. Here's proof.
Conservatives: We don't want to talk about that anymore. That makes Bush look bad. Let's talk about the mayor instead!
Liberals: We're not talking about the mayor. Can we stay on topic here? The mayor has nothing to do with the photo ops.
Conservatives: Did you know Kerry was also a bad candidate?
Liberals: What does that have to do with this?
Conservatives: Lets not worry about actually feeding people and let the man have his photo ops.

Don't forget lengthy, esoteric, "think outloud" essays where the writer embarks on an intellectual exercise designed to try and convince himself of something from as many different perspectives as possible!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Don't forget lengthy, esoteric, "think outloud" essays where the writer embarks on an intellectual exercise designed to try and convince himself of something from as many different perspectives as possible!

Yes, followed by the "It's the liberals fault that Bush needs to stage photo ops and not help people" post.

Here is a metaphor.

You have to hire a gardener to keep your lawn. You decide to hire a person, against your wife's wishes (your wife thought another candidate was better). The person you hired does a terrible job and half the time doesn't even show for work, and yet you're paying him $15 an hour. Your wife expresses her dissatisfaction at the gardeners performance. A liberal would go ahead and fire the gardener who is not doing the job because, hey, you're paying him $15 an hour and nothing is getting done. A conservative would tell his wife it's her fault for not believing in the gardener, that the gardener is an expert and knows what he's doing much better than she does, that this gardener probably has a very stressful and hard life and we shouldn't be too rough on him, that the maid is telling him to stay away from the house, and in fact the gardener is probably preparing to do something wonderful any day now, while continuing to pay the $15 an hour the gardener claims he is working.

[besson3c]

Mojo, in the spirit of generalizations, Republicans are supposed to be highly practical, down-to-earth people who do not make decisions purely based on emotions and their hearts.

How can you actually believe half of the stuff you write? Do you realize how far it appears you are reaching to justify your beliefs? So many of your posts are constructed accordingly:

- esoteric point #1
- esoteric point #2
- good point (you do have those)
- rambling
- esoteric point #3
- call to action
- wild jump into a very emotional conclusion

I appreciate your detective work, your deep insight, and your wanting to dig up all this dirt. However, we are all limited by not being in direct contact with the politicians in the White House. We all speculate and make some assumptions, but your wild esoteric essays take the cake. At times, you just come across as completely over-the-top. I know that with further drafting and refining of your points, you'll zero in on a really killer point, but your first attempts are often a little too much, and certainly far more wordy than they could be.

Stop trying so hard to be partisan or some deep political scholar on these forums, and just be yourself. If you require to write us a book in order to get into a particular subject, chances are it's a little out-of-reach of the kind of conversation easily allowed in a forum like this.

I seriously encourage you to write your thoughts down on a blog, and work on collecting everything and publishing academic papers or books. Seriously, no sarcasm. You'd really create a name for yourself this way.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

IMO besson3c saw that movement as a harmless expression of grief by mournful friends and family members of deceased warriors and an attempt to stop the bloodshed in Iraq, to bring ALL our boys and girls home immediately and to live happily ever after. besson3c saw this as strictly a matter of free speech and anti-war.

You notice that article you quoted only said Muslims would be prepared to defend themselves if their own countries were invaded.

No DUH! Who would have thunk it?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Don't forget lengthy, esoteric, "think outloud" essays where the writer embarks on an intellectual exercise designed to try and convince himself of something from as many different perspectives as possible!

Photo ops are important to a leader and to the governed. Yes?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Photo ops are important to a leader and to the governed. Yes?

I'm sorry Mojo. When photo op's are pre-empting feeding people, I think the answer is a nice fat no.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

Yes, followed by the "It's the liberals fault that Bush needs to stage photo ops and not help people" post.

Here is a metaphor.

You have to hire a gardener to keep your lawn. You decide to hire a person, against your wife's wishes (your wife thought another candidate was better). The person you hired does a terrible job and half the time doesn't even show for work, and yet you're paying him $15 an hour. Your wife expresses her dissatisfaction at the gardeners performance. A liberal would go ahead and fire the gardener who is not doing the job because, hey, you're paying him $15 an hour and nothing is getting done. A conservative would tell his wife it's her fault for not believing in the gardener, that the gardener is an expert and knows what he's doing much better than she does, that this gardener probably has a very stressful and hard life and we shouldn't be too rough on him, that the maid is telling him to stay away from the house, and in fact the gardener is probably preparing to do something wonderful any day now, while continuing to pay the $15 an hour the gardener claims he is working.

KUDOS!

I applaud the use of the analogy. Love it!

However, there's one very important dynamic which you missed.

The part about the gardener's work being vital to the life of the family members.

Oh, and one more part you need to fix is the part where everyone in the family voted and this gardener won the contract.

Oh, another thing...he DOES HAVE A CONTRACT. You can't forget that.

Other than those little parts, it's perfect!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

KUDOS!

I applaud the use of the analogy. Love it!

However, there's one very important dynamic which you missed.

The part about the gardener's work being vital to the life of the family members.

Oh, and one more part you need to fix is the part where everyone in the family voted and this gardener won the contract.

Oh, another thing...he DOES HAVE A CONTRACT. You can't forget that.

Other than those little parts, it's perfect!

Lets see... when I have someone under contract to do a job and they don't do it.. I usually do... uhhh... what's it called... fire them?

Great. So the kids voted with you to hire to gardener. That doesn't make the gardener do his job any better.

And, if it wasn't clear by my post, the gardeners work isn't very vital at all because he's not actually doing any work.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

I'm sorry Mojo. When photo op's are pre-empting feeding people, I think the answer is a nice fat no.

See, that's where critical thinking comes into play.

How do you KNOW these firemen were going to do "the feeding?"

How do you know that there weren't enough personnel on hand to do the jobs that needed to be done by the time of the photo op?

How do you pre-suppose things that aren't necessarilly so?

Just because you haven't thought about other possible scenarios does that mean there aren't any?

And if someone else said these rescue people were taken away from feeding hungry NOLA'ns, how do they know?

I've seen no proof that what you say is so.

Anyone got links?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

See, that's where critical thinking comes into play.

How do you KNOW these firemen were going to do "the feeding?"

Uhh... let's see here. They are in New Orleans... There are people who are in trouble (like the woman who came up to Bush).... and they're FREAKIN Fireman. Do you think the community the Fireman are from pay them for helping people or photo-ops? I'll give you five tries to guess.

Maybe you're right and the Canadians who got there before us already helped everyone.

Originally Posted by mojo2

How do you know that there weren't enough personnel on hand to do the jobs that needed to be done by the time of the photo op?

Because the first hand reports said there were people who needed help? What about the woman who came up to Bush asking for help?

Originally Posted by mojo2

How do you pre-suppose things that aren't necessarilly so?

How do you claim things that are so still aren't?

Originally Posted by mojo2

Just because you haven't thought about other possible scenarios does that mean there aren't any?

I can make up a world where the sky is green in my head. That doesn't mean it's reality.

Originally Posted by mojo2

And if someone else said these rescue people were taken away from feeding hungry NOLA'ns, how do they know?

Please define the job of "rescue people" for me. That might help you understand what they do. Then define the job of a "fashion modal". Then Ven Diagram the two. Let me know what you come up with.

Originally Posted by mojo2

I've seen no proof that what you say is so.

Then you've been ignoring the first page of this thread.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

Lets see... when I have someone under contract to do a job and they don't do it.. I usually do... uhhh... what's it called... fire them?

Great. So the kids voted with you to hire to gardener. That doesn't make the gardener do his job any better.

And, if it wasn't clear by my post, the gardeners work isn't very vital at all because he's not actually doing any work.

Oh, well then your metaphoric construct is flawed. Sorry.

It depends on the contract of course, but generally speaking A CONTRACT means you pay either way. If he does the work or whether you fire him and he doesn't do the work. Either way, you USUALLY pay. Democrats usually don't mind paying needlessly because it's not their money. Haha!

Then, there's your perception that the gardener is doing a bad job because he spread manure around the house and it really isn't very pleasant. In fact, it STINKS! Then, there's the chemicals he is using to keep bugs and disease away from your yard and garden. And the chemicals are dangerous to the kids and pets and the wife hates the danger and the smell. She hates the gardener and wants you to eat the contract, go ahead and buy out the contract just to get things back to normal. Get rid of the smell. Get rid of the danger. Let's all play outside, again. Let's invite the neighbors over like we used to, we'll barbecue some steaks and drink beer!

But what the wife doesn't know is that the garden needs fertilizing and there are signs that the whole backyard is in danger of contracting a serious disease. In fact your cherished beautiful elm tree could be lost to disease. What the gardener was doing was in the best interests of your garden and exactly what you need, but because you can't speak japanese and his english aint that great, he reluctantly leaves.

Then, you and the family are happy and life returns to normal but...

See, I KNOW what will happen, but you only hope you can promise everyone lives happily ever after.

The gardener was doing a better job than you knew.

He was working to keep you supplied with food. Fruits and vegetables. So. When you can't get food anywhere else and you can't get food from your own garden. Ask yourself how smart you were to fire the gardener?

Yes, we're talking about oil again.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Summary: I'm picking on his hero, so I'm a danger to the world. Does anybody here actually read his essays?

I do. I read your posts as well.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

President Kerry wouldn't have put a failed horse judge crony in charge of FEMA.

Yes, it's very possible that he would have. Depends on who HE owed a favor to (maybe some S&B buddy from back in the day).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Oh, well then your metaphoric construct is flawed. Sorry.

It depends on the contract of course, but generally speaking A CONTRACT means you pay either way. If he does the work or whether you fire him and he doesn't do the work. Either way, you USUALLY pay. Democrats usually don't mind paying needlessly because it's not their money. Haha!

Then, there's your perception that the gardener is doing a bad job because he spread manure around the house and it really isn't very pleasant. In fact, it STINKS! Then, there's the chemicals he is using to keep bugs and disease away from your yard and garden. And the chemicals are dangerous to the kids and pets and the wife hates the danger and the smell. She hates the gardener and wants you to eat the contract, go ahead and buy out the contract just to get things back to normal. Get rid of the smell. Get rid of the danger. Let's all play outside, again. Let's invite the neighbors over like we used to, we'll barbecue some steaks and drink beer!

But what the wife doesn't know is that the garden needs fertilizing and there are signs that the whole backyard is in danger of contracting a serious disease. In fact your cherished beautiful elm tree could be lost to disease. What the gardener was doing was in the best interests of your garden and exactly what you need, but because you can't speak japanese and his english aint that great, he reluctantly leaves.

Then, you and the family are happy and life returns to normal but...

See, I KNOW what will happen, but you only hope you can promise everyone lives happily ever after.

The gardener was doing a better job than you knew.

He was working to keep you supplied with food. Fruits and vegetables. So. When you can't get food anywhere else and you can't get food from your own garden. Ask yourself how smart you were to fire the gardener?

Yes, we're talking about oil again.

Huh? Now you're changing my metaphor. You shouldn't do that, that's rude.

You're the one who continues to support Bush while he slacks off and doesn't do any actual work. If I had my way, he'd be gone. That's the point of the metaphor.

What Bush has done is the equivalent of buying bags of manure, and leaving them on the front porch. You're right, this does stink very much. And guess what? Now you have to spread the manure too. The gardener started the job, didn't actually know how to finish it or know what he was doing. Every-time you ask the gardener when he is going to spread that manure he tells you it's part of a long process that is complicated. But, he has no intention of doing any work and as time goes on it gets more and more obvious. In fact, so far the only thing he's done is the easiest part. Meantime the elm tree dies. The gardener pretends to know Japanese so you can't ask him why he's not doing into any work. You buy into the whole thing, still thinking he is doing you a vital service when in fact, he isn't really doing any service at all.

That's called being a sucker.