Trial-and-Error
-
Posts
106 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Trial-and-Error
-
-
Or why not cut to the real point and pass a law forcing WalMart to pay all employees a minimum wage of, let's say, $15/hour?
Whaddya think?
Why, August, at long last, an idea that reflects a little heart. Stay with it.
I think it's immoral for any business, especially one as established as Walmart to earn profits on the backs of its workers. I refuse to shop at Walmarts or any store where it's clear that the worker is tantamount to slave labour.
-
Tawasakm, are you still beating away on this insanity thing? Your postings are now becoming quite comical as you pontificate on a subject you know little about. As someone else noted, your reading of one book and taking one course does not make you any kind of an expert who can cast aspersions on other peoples' opinion notwithstanding your protestations to the contrary.
Psychology is not a science--not even close. One day, who knows, but right now those in the field are still floundering.
And just one other thing, instead of pooh poohing "common sense" as you seem wont to do, I would suggest that you try it first. Because someone tells you that psychology is a science, your common sense should tell you that it is not. That was my whole point originally, the amount of study that's been done on the mind, the brain, whatever, is very limited compared to what needs to be done. We simply haven't amassed sufficient data based on sufficient experiments that can be independently duplicated over and over and over with the same results. That's the thing with psychology too, you can always find someone in your court--whatever court that happens to be. So much for science.
A Study of Science. Sigmund Koch describes the delusion in thinking of psychology as a science:
"The hope of a psychological science became indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science."
Koch also says, "Throughout psychology's history as 'science,' the hard knowledge it has deposited has been uniformly negative."
Before you place your bets on psychology as a science, you might want to check out the miserable misdiagnoses psychologists and psychiatrists make on a fairly regular basis.
If a psychologist or psychiatrist tries to tell me that Bush is sane and yet is responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of men, women and children--all based on contrivances--then I say the good doctor needs a shrink him/herself.
No one in their right mind sets out to commit wholesale slaughter.
-
What dictionary are you using again? Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary states the following: "insane - mentally disordered: exhibiting insanity 2: used by , typical of, or intended for insane persons" (as in insane asylum) "3: absurd"
"insanity - a deranged state of the mind usu. occurring as a specific disorder...and usu. excluding such states as mental deficiency, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders b: a mental disorder 2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility 3 a: extreme folly or unreasonableness"
So if it's all the same to you, I still consider Junior insane. We can mince words until hell freezes over and your "knowledge" of psychology, which of course you know is not a true science, seems impressive enough. Still, I'm afraid it provides me with no information to explain mass slaughter of civilians and other war crimes by Junior and his administration. As for "common sense," I find that in the absence of scientific explanations, it works like a tinker's dam--besides which I'm naturally quite intuitive.
That you expect that we should all respect one another's viewpoints--sorry, but that ain't happening any time soon. But, hey, I think I have exercised a degree of decorum in my responses. I'd like to think that I've been civil.
Having said that, I won't be responding to the remainder of your post as it would be an exercise in futility. But if you'd care to take another swing at me and have the last word, go for it. I'll read it--of course--I couldn't resist--but I won't be replying. It's time to move on.
-
"The logical corollary is that it is of no particular import that you, personally, think GW is insane (which, incidentally is a legal concept not a psychological one). Of course that attitude gets us nowhere. Why don't we take the view the for the purposes of debate on this forum that the thoughts of contributing posters are all important."
For a pollyanna, your statement will do just fine. The point I was trying to make is that I wasn't concerned that one person (in that instance, kimmy and in this instance, you) didn't share my view that Junior is insane but that there is a consensus reflecting the same view which causes me concern. But, I like to be up front, so yes, there was also an intent to deliver a wee dig. My advice to you would be to bypass perceived or real "slights." Surely we're all sufficiently grown up here that we can take a few on the chin without becoming so sanctimoniously defensive. But never mind, kimmy will undoubtedly appreciate that you respect her views. And that's a good thing.
By the way, your definition of "insane" is only one of many; nevertheless, I'm heartened that you possess a legal inclination. However, for purposes of this argument your definition is neither here nor there since we are unfortunately not trying Junior in the courts. If and when that day comes (hope springs eternal, no?) we can revisit your definition vis-a-vis Sonny. By the way, here's another use of the word, insane, in connection with the mad, raving insane Bushites.
You may postulate that many convicted criminals suffer from mental disorders but I think that may be a bit of a leap. Particularly if you then want to establish that so many of these individuals would also have diminished responsibility.
Remember, also, that having a bad childhood and/or being unhappy, while unfortunate, is not a mental disorder.
Why would I remember such a statement for any other reason than it stands out as one of ignorance? Brains are constantly changing and in flux, which is precisely why we are able to learn. Most of us are fortunate to be born with genes that give us the beginnings of normalcy. However, as we age and we gain more experience, our brains change accordingly. I guess it's safe to assume that most of us "normal" individuals are raised by "normal" parents who in doing the best they can for us provide us with many more positive experiences than negative ones.
However, there are those far less fortunate who from the day they are born are subject to physical and/or mental abuse. Depending on the degree they are battered and neglected, their brains will undergo the kind of change that can turn them into adolescents and adults who are to put it mildly not very nice.
Having gotten a raw deal as children but having miraculously reached maturity, society takes over and gives them another punch in the solarplexis. "You're old enough now to know better." Hogwash. You don't arrive at the age of majority "knowing" what's right and what's wrong. Hell, if that were the case, we could let our own little darlings raise themselves knowing that when they become of age they'll just instinctively know that NOW and henceforth, they will be model and productive citizens. Right! And yet our justice system is built on just that kind of assumption.
Take a look at the prison population. Discounting anomalies, it is not comprised mostly of individuals from advantaged homes, nor is "advantaged" necessarily mean "monied" either. Again, it's all plain common sense. This is not rocket science. But the maddening crowds wallow in their barbaric thinking, rehashing the same old, same old and then wonder why there's crime in the streets and why wars continue unabated. In many ways, we still keep drawing on the biblical stuff (and "stuff" is what I consider it) that we're all born sinners. For sure, we focus more on revenge than rehabilitation. Someone has to pay--kinda like Junior, the Born Again Christian, who in case you've forgotten has been responsible for slaughtering.....well, you certainly must remember the stats--in the name of "name your poison--it doesn't appear to matter."
Junior needs to be relieved of his duties; sent to a mental institute and studied, as should all mass murderers.
Syptoms are necessary for diagnosis...
Great, so what's your diagnosis?
Relax - there is a great deal of competent research occuring.
I must assume that you're merely being flip. I don't happen to look at mass murder in such a light-hearted way. In fact, you are part of the problem. Until such time as the general public can actually visualize what it must be like to be the subject of Junior's insanity, we shall continue to be relaxed and lax. I don't happen to be on that side of the fence.
Incidentally, just to be sporting, I should let you know that with the symptoms you are attributing to Bush you could make out a case for him being schizophrenic. Of course I think you are wrong in attributing these symptoms.
What kind of double-talk is that? How could I possibly convince you that Junior is schizophrenic when you deny that Junior displays any signs of being delusional and/or unfeeling.
Junior is responsible for hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan/Iraq/USA who have died horrendous deaths and suffered unspeakable injuries. I can't top that for signs of being "unfeeling".
Having no proof that the people of Iraq would welcome Junior's bombs so that he could give them "democracy," yet going ahead and mercilessly attacking an already "under-sieged" people on a whim I think might be considered "unfeeling" among other things.
That he is in contravention of the Geneva Convention; i.e., he claims he can (and he has) with impugnity order the torture and inhumane treatment of those his forces have captured might be considered a sign that he is both barbaric and delusional. Certainly sends up a red flag for me. And how about the fact that he believes God is on his side? How delusional is that?
Put any spin on it you like, the man is a raving lunatic as are all the neocons and anyone else who supported the illegal invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq. Until the mindset of the public is changed, the slaughter of war shall continue. It seems that only when it reaches you, kimmy and others will you begin to understand the insanity of it all, including the perpetrators. Just kind of sit back and think of more sane ways to spend 300 billion dollars
-
Tawasakm - will try my darndest to address your post later this evening--if not tonight, some time over the weekend. I'm certain you'll be looking forward to it.
-
Terrible Sweal - I'm pleased to learn that you find my response interesting. That's good. Yes, there are some things that don't require changing. Just because you and others believe that the definition of marriage should expand to include same sex couples doesn't mean that others should have to agree. Keep in mind, that you can legislate rights for minorities in which case I'm on side, but you cannot legislate how some people feel about their traditions. That's all I was saying. Some things, sweal, are just that simple.
-
Could anyone have predicted a second Bush "win"? Yes, but only by those who were able to figure out that this Administration would do whatever was necessary to prevail. Hell, even when the media was showing that Kerry was in the lead, I turned off the tv knowing full well that the following morning would show that Junior had won. A Kerry win was impossible. The fix was in well before the sheep got to the polls. Of course, this is yet another one of those conspiracy theories in which only whackos believe.
Hi! My name is Trial-and-Error and I'm a Whacko--of Distinction.
C'mon guys, it's all a matter of plain common sense. That someone would spend hundreds of millions of dollars, lie, cheat, and claw their ways into your hearts to get elected should give you a clue that YOUR well being is NOT their motivator.
When you want to get to the bottom of anything, you question motives. With houses, it's always location, location, location. With politics, it's motivation, motivation, motivation.
Once we get that sorted out, we realize that those in high political places are not there to do a good job for US. They are strictly in the pockets of those who can do THEM the most good--and we're not even in the equation.
Democracy in the truest sense of the word exists only in our minds. The powers that be in democracies are becoming more blatant as they gradually but ever so consistently erode our rights.
Until the majority of us smarten up, the best we can do is choose the lesser of two evils.
The monied and the powerful have everything sewn up because they understand crowd mentality. While it's true that to them the bottom line is everything, you have to believe that a side benefit of crowd ignorance is a jolly good chuckle.
But to me it's dreadfully sad that people don't get it. And for the most part they don't. That parents would willingly sacrifice their own children to champion a cause which benefits only the rich and powerful is distressing to me. Who has the most to lose--the poor slob who believes in the nobility of going to war with people they have no quarrel with. And who has the most to win? As I say, it all comes down to common sense.
As a people we are only as good as our weakest links--and alas we have those in droves.
-
[My kids are all grown up now and when we discuss the issue, I find that we are divided along generational lines. Seems many of us oldsters are traditionalists whilst the "kids" don't give a whit. We all agree on equal benefits; we disagree on nomenclature. ...
While there may be some among you who would label me homophobic, you would be wrong.
If you agree that homosexuals should have the same rights 'in all but name', then I think you need to explain:
(1) what difference you think the name itself makes; and then
(2) why you think its proper to retain that difference, despite your asserted acceptance of the principle of equality.
Failing such explanation, perhaps you need to acknowledge that there is in fact some element of anti-homosexual bias in your position.
1) I've already answered that. I am a traditionalist who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others (or words to that effect)--and should remain so. It's that simple--no hiddren agendas--no moralizing. All definitions by definition define the parameters of a word. I have no desire to see the definition expanded to include same sexes.
2) The sexes are neither equal nor unequal--they're different and marriage to me shall remain forever the union of male and female.
Do I feel so strongly that I would actively oppose marriage for gay couples? No, I'll suck it up, but to repeat what I've said before, in my eyes gays will never be married.
Homophoebic? Not even close.
-
Good grief, pocket, are you sure it was caffeine you were high on when you took all those pot shots at me last night? The only arrows that ever hit me are those nasties containing some element of truth. Not surprisingly I came away from your post totally unscathed. You see--and I'm only quoting what my friends say--"Lulubelle, you're such a sweetie, so far above the fray." And I don't at all disagree.
-
Just by the by, under "civil union" or "marriage"--whichever way it goes in the HC--will one partner be able to have the contract annulled if the union is not consumated?
Perhaps the idea of consumation will be removed entirely to make way for non-sexual partnerships?
Of course. Why should other "couples" who love one another in a non-sexual way not be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual and gay married couples? What would distinguish such a "couple" from the married ones? The sex act?! Is this what all this fol de rol is all about?
Plain common sense is no longer with us. I hear gays saying that they want to be treated like married couples cuz they want the world to know they love their partner and marriage is a way to make this public proclamation. Horse feathers! Sign up for a civil union, celebrate with gay abandon, get your benefits, and carry on with life.
And to all couples, hetero and homosexuals - Kissing and mauling one another in public is repugnant. Such activity is not a spectator sport. If I see one more male or female couple kissing on the tv news (talking about gay marriage), I think I will upchuck my cookies. In your face is not where it's at. What I'm thinking is that that's the agenda of many gays--make it so open that before you know it homosexuality is seen as a normal lifestyle to choose.
Those who condone marriage between a man and a man and a woman and a woman are being politically correct but socially irresponsible. While I believe that homosexuals are for the most part born that way, I also tend to believe that it could become an acquired "taste." I would not want to raise youngsters to believe that it is normal for men to marry men and women to marry women. It is NOT normal. It is an ANOMOLY. But it is also NOT an anomoly to be ridiculed or criticized but simply taken for what it is.
My kids are all grown up now and when we discuss the issue, I find that we are divided along generational lines. Seems many of us oldsters are traditionalists whilst the "kids" don't give a whit. We all agree on equal benefits; we disagree on nomenclature. They're forgiven
While there may be some among you who would label me homophobic, you would be wrong.
Still I must retain my position, fix the bloody law--get the nomenclature right. Men do not MARRY men and women do not MARRY women. Period!
-
Ya know, kimmy, I wasn't going to trouble myself by responding to your last post because to do so seemed like an exercise in diminishing returns. But plug away I must--at least for one more go-around--com'on, how often does one get to dialogue with someone who lays claim to brilliance. For lack of evidence, I didn't know--but not to worry. Do a Junior. Repeat, repeat, repeat your claim and you, too, can garner a following. Remember, the great unwashed aka human sponges will believe just about any proclamation if it is repeated often enough. The technique works, so stick with it, kimmy. By the way, how brilliant are you?
That you, personally, feel that Junior is sane is not particularly important but I fear that there are so many "out there" who believe as you do--alas, alas.
You see I don't buy your theory that Sonny's crimes against humanity are due to his intellectual shortcomings (among many), or his ineptitude, or his inability to surround himself with a team who is capable of giving him good intelligence; or his proclivity for exercising poor judgment; or his ignorance. That's where you make your mistake and its an egregious one at that. Junior is fully aware of what he is doing--but his demented mind lacks the ability to feel remorse, to empathize, to self-reflect. Junior's crimes against the human race are predicated on his delusions of grandeur and hunger for power--at any and all cost so long as payment is exacted from all but himself.
Add to the mix his past--use of hard drugs and alcohol; his callous treatment of helpless animals; his disregard for human life (when asked by someone what he thought Karla Faye Tucker might say to him, Junior responded in the most chilling, mocking tone, "Please don't kill me."); his quick, seemingly premeditated response to the horrific events of 911; his use of DU weapons which are and shall continue to have devastating effects on all those who managed to survive the initial bombings; his cowardly behaviour during the Vietnam years but his unconscienable willingness to expend the lives of his own countrymen--shall I go on? Together, these are signs of a seriously troubled mind.
At the very least, he needs to undergo a psychiatric assessment before he goes on to be responsible for more acts against humanity.
The United States of America has over the years sentenced to death thousands of people (many of whom were actually guilty) for acts of inhumanity much less devastating than those committed by Junior. I would venture to say that the vast majority of them if not all suffered from one form of insanity or another. But as a would-be Texan, I bet you believe murders in general are committed by people who are simply greedy, vindictive, or whatever--or perhaps under the influence of the devil. That the workings of their brains coupled with their life's experiences could result in mental illness is perhaps for you beyond the pale. And that's precisely an earlier point I made, the brain is the last frontier of discovery--not space. The vast majority of people can recognize a broken arm but cannot detect a broken mind. That's precisely why there is no public outcry for mega monies to be spent in brain research--the obvious has escaped you. Get beyond the symptoms; identify the problem. It's nothing short of mind boggling that man knows so little about the workings of the brain even though the brain is the heart of humanity.
But back to Junior who has chalked up 100's of thousands of deaths and wounded--psychologically and physically. He has sent many young men and women half way around the world to perpetrate the most wicked acts of injustice upon a people they don't even know--a people who were already sick, starving and utterly deprived--and all at the direction of a man who is clearly deranged, unashamed, and dedicated to heady power. There are no redeeming features to this unwarranted, illegal war. None. Junior was able to initiate this quagmire by pathologically lying to the American people who having been propagandized over the years to believe that they are god's chosen went along with the bareface lies. As for the whorish media, they are for all purposes anethema to the public good.
And so the WH's mentally challenged boy gets away with genocide because people like you don't see him for what he his--deranged. You, instead, want to rationalize his errors on the most ludicrous basis which I won't again repeat and cause you further embarrassment. The leader of the free world as a result of his pyschosis has metamorphised into a full blown war criminal.
I also note in another one of your posts that you believe that the majority of sane people do not believe in any conspiracy theories regarding 911. Well, kimmy with no "dear", it is the "official" story that IS the conspiracy theory. Do yourself and the rest of us who are not buying your take on 911 a favour--google 911 and read, read, read. Here's a site to get you started and do please report back to us when you discover all the answers. I have an open mind--you may go down in history as the genious who was able to prove the official version to the exclusion of all others.
One more thing, just like I don't buy the package of any one political party, I also don't buy all the statements contained in the various "conspiracy" theories. Nevertheless, I can tell you many of the so-called conspiracy theories contain a good deal of information worthy of serious consideration. The point is that until such time as Bush (a proven inveterate liar) is willing to substantiate his official version, it is fully suspect and cannot by any rational individual be taken as the truth.
Hell, here are a few more sites
More Leftist Pennings - Horrors!
War Crimes(War crimes)
-
I think the very idea of changing the definition of marriage to include same sex pairs is nothing short of ludicrous. I think the notion that same sex pairs should be granted the right to join together in a civil union granting them the same rights those within a traditional marriage enjoy is long overdue.
For me, it's a no-brainer. Let's retain the definition of marriage for the traditionalists and let's introduce another term for the joining of gay couples for gays.
The issue here is whether or not gay couples should be granted the same rights as married couples--and the answer is an unqualified yes.
Let the H of C pass a law that homosexuals be permitted to marry, but I for one will never refer to a gay couple as being married. Not ever. Similarly I will never acknowledge that a gay couple is married. Again, not ever.
And I say that not on moral or religious grounds--hell, I abhor organized religion--but rather on grounds of tradition.
Just as I would not expect a minority group to change their traditions to suit me, don't expect me to modify my traditions to suit a minority group.
Just by the by, under "civil union" or "marriage"--whichever way it goes in the HC--will one partner be able to have the contract annulled if the union is not consumated?
-
Actually, there is nothing absurd about it at all. A very high proportion of senior executives and politicians are classifiable as sociopaths. That has been the conclusions of much study of the phenemenon.
It is also true that most of those function quite well in the world and that the manifestations of their illness are confined to attitudes towards their "business" that are, strangely, often a measure of success.
It becomes a problem when those sociopaths began to think they are real and unanswerable to any but themselves. When that happens it becomes dangerous. When it is allied to a deep pathology, it is more so. When it occurs in the occupant of very high and powerful office, it brings Napoleons and Hitlers.
I believe it has now brought us Bush.
Although it brings me little peace, I concur fully with what you say.
-
Blaming Dubya's actions on mental illness is a rationalization.
Dunno so much that I was blaming Junior. One doesn't generally "blame" someone for having a mental illness. Well, maybe in Alberta they do. No, dear kimmy, I was saying that Junior's horrific actions are the manifestations of a mental illness.
Debating Dubya's actions as stupid, uninformed, short-sighted is called critical thinking.Gee, can you spare a minute to run that one by me again, Kimmy. Am I to understand that you are citing a definition? Let me quickly re-phrase what you said so you can go back and think about it again. Critical thinking is the act of debating Junior's actions as stupid, uninformed, or short-sighted.
Kimmy from Alta again!
I'm auditing a course at my local university about the workings of the human brain, and I've found it is an astounding instrument. But reading "the dear doctor's" biography, I wonder if perhaps I'm taking the hard way. Perhaps I should just roll a huge joint, get blasted, and proclaim it a "spiritual awakening". Then I could declare myself a "healer" too.Why just auditing, Kimmy? No, that's okay. Auditing is a good beginning inasmuch as you have now discovered the human brain is an astounding instrument. Run with that, kimmy. And don't stop until you learn to recognize some of the signs of mental illness. Start with Junior.
Gee, I think you're going to have to change your attitude if you plan to derive anything out of that "brain course." Maybe for you rolling a huge joint is the only way to get through it. But if that's the case, I think you have to go one step further and smoke it.
Sometimes, kimmy, I like to debate this subject but most of the time I just like to throw in my opinion. I've just done too much thinking about the subject of Junior having spent an incredible amount of time listening to him, watching his body language, and taking note of his mouthings and his proclaimed beliefs juxtaposed to his actions and I have concluded the man is seriously deranged.
If you wish to put Bush's actions down to simplistic terms of just being short-sightedand/or being uninformed and/or stupid be my guest. Dealing with a guy of that elevated world level on your terms is just a waste of time--for me that is.
I will, however, concede the author is not a doctor--not even a witch doctor. My oversight. But damn, I like what he has to say--notwithstanding your take on him.
-
This person has invented a psychological ailment and proceded to diagnose Bush and 105,000,000 other Americans as having that ailment. Such presumption says more about the author than his subject, and might indicate some sort of megalomaniacal disorder of some sort.
Argue that Bush is stupid, ignorant, or uninformed. Argue that his policies are short-sighted or motivated by a hidden agenda. Argue that American voters have been conned or scared or that they're short-sighted. There's lots of great arguments about Bush and his policies to be made.
But don't make up a bunch of psychological mumbo-jumbo, unless you want to look like a complete fool. It makes you seem like a fruit-cake and trivializes the point you want to make.
Oh, Kimmy, a fool; no, no, a complete fool; a fruitcake too--Indeed. Is that what you think of me for posting that article by the dear doctor. My, my.
Do you really want to rationalize Junior's deeds by claiming he's stupid or uninformed, or short-sighted, or all of the above. Best you think about that one. He's none of those--honest! Get a grip.
Junior does, however, show severe signs of mental illness and the author was merely putting forward a theory of what it might be. As for those who support Junior, yes, dear soul, I believe they suffer from a form of mental illness as well. But way up on the mental illness list is Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and all who would senslessly support a man who is nothing short of a pathological liar and who is responsible for mass murder and torture. Stupid? Ill-informed? Short-sighted. Let's be serious. You'd better hope that the American public wake up pretty soon. Junior is dangerously ill.
Until such time as we breed out severe mental illness from the human race we are destined to destroy ourselves.
Let us dedicate the same kind of resources on studying the brain as we do in killing machines and killing. Let us dedicate more resources in trying to find our humanity.
-
George W. Bush is ill. He has a psycho-spiritual dis-ease of the soul, a sickness that is endemic to our culture and symptomatic of the times we live in. It’s an illness that has been with us since time immemorial. Because it’s an illness that's in the soul of all of humanity, it pervades the field and is in all of us in potential at any moment, which makes it especially hard to diagnose. Bush's malady is quite different from schizophrenia, for example, in which all the different parts of the personality are fragmented and not connected to each other, resulting in a state of internal chaos. As compared to the dis-order of the schizophrenic, Bush can sound quite coherent and can appear like such a "regular," normal guy, which makes the syndrome he is suffering from very hard to recognize. This is because the healthy parts of his personality have been co-opted by the pathological aspect, which drafts them into its service. Because of the way the personality self-organizes an outer display of coherence around a pathogenic core, I would like to name Bush's illness ‘malignant egophrenic (as compared to schizophrenic) disease,’ or ‘ME disorder,’ for short. If ME disorder goes unrecognized and is not contained, it can be very destructive, particularly if the person is in a position of power.
This rather lengthy article reflects what many of us opposed to Junior's policies have intuitively already figured out; namely, that the man is psychologically seriously ill. Junior's enablers need not protest--it would be....well, too predictable.
-
I'm sure your feeling is shared by hundreds of millions if not a few billions around the world. Anyone with a modicum of sensitivity and plain common sense would have had Junior's number the moment he uttered, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." His "either/or" immediately reflected most negatively upon his person.
At once he demonstrated that he was threatening; unworldly (nothing in this world is black or white, rather all life is comprised of a vast spectrum of grays); obsessively confrontational; and possessed skewed leadership skills attracting those who have the most to benefit from his presidency, those who can't or won't think for themselves, the gullible, the mindless flag wavers who can't see beyond the borders of their own country, the thoroughly propagandized, the incurably insensitive, hypocrites; the list goes on.
What I find so unnerving is that the average American is not in tune with his/her own common sense, logic and humanity. Most get their information from American television who don't provide news but rather propaganda. A few actually read books--albeit selective ones written in support of Bush's foreign policies--but show clearly they don't read critically. Unfortunately, if Bush continues with his agenda, those who have supported him and continue to support him will not be blameless for all the unnecessary deaths and horrific disabilities that have been and that are to come.
To what degree a nation is democratized and humane can be found in its human rights record particularly as it pertains to the treatment of its poor, sick, prisoners and other disenfranchised groups. Alas, the U.S. does not rank high. What's gauling is not so much that they haven't got it right but that they haven't got it right whilst claiming they're the world's best. Repetition doesn't turn falsehood into truth--pretty elementary but too many Americans mistake proclamation for fact.
But to get back to your original question, "Am I awful....?" Of course you're not, as you are voicing this sentiment in the absence of some other viable way of staving off additional horrific misery for hundreds of thousands of people. Failing the possibility that Americans as a whole wake up, I don't see how things are going to change for the better. I just wish there were sufficient numbers down there who would bring pressure to bear to have the man impeached.
Although I wouldn't shed a tear were he to suffer some kind of terminal accident, I think the current V.P. would be even worse. However were an accident to occur and they were both in it, welllll...........
No, it's won't work--alas. Lord knows what the American reaction would be if either or both were taken out, so perhaps we had just better hope that the American people rise up and take back their country from the despots through legal means.
-
Good God, I'm sorry August but your beliefs about the US of A are nothing short of daft and the one thing you don't seem to demonstrate is just plain common sense. Of course they haven't TAKEN anything from us by force but I guarantee the day we decide that our water resource for instance can be had at a price THEY think is unacceptable and we become truculent and insist they pay us what WE think is fair is the day you're looking at trouble--real trouble.
As for democracy, there is no such animal--democracy is a figment of your imagination. Under all forms of government, the average bloke is but a pawn. You might not be able to do anything about it, but learn to recognize it. You are precisely the type of person Junior and his gang of thugs adore--the type who can make a case for their own hanging. That Bush bunch get off on watching the ignorant gaily put a noose around their own necks. Believe you me, your type are the butt of their jokes behind closed doors. Gullible is in in the USA and you're a natural.
By the way, you haven't answered any of my questions; you're just like the idiot you so worship. You don't actually have to answer the question, all you need do is say you've answered the question and then provide me with jibberish. Incidentally, don't you recognize rhetorical questions when you see them?
-
Would someone out there please answer the question, other than the USA itself from what countries do we need defending?
IMV it's a bloody waste of money to beef up the ranks of our fighting military. There are only two interests the U.S. have in Canada--the protection of our natural resources and the protection of the U.S. from terrorists who might use Canada as a point of entry across the 49th.
Yes, the Yanks want us to protect our treasure chest of natrual resources so no one will lay claim to it but them? Yeah, right! It's got nothing to do with protecting our sorry asses--not in the least.
If we don't want to be the subject of terrorism attacks, we are best to stay out of American-initiated wars. Let's not make the mistake of getting sucked in against our own interests. While I do not condone terrorism in any form, the American administration--especially the present one--has indeed brought all this upon itself through its determination to gain control over resources that are not theirs. Thus, if they want to prevent terrorists from using our country to get into the U.S.A. then the onus for paying for this operation rests solely with the Americans who obviously support their greedy, truth-challenged leader. Let them be the ones who finance the protection of their borders. In the meantime, if we want to engage in protection, let's begin by keeping out the American rifraft who come in with guns.
This democracy theme that Junior is flogging is a joke for the consumption of the ignorant.
How many times must the USA demonstrate that it will take by force if necessary anything it damn well pleases. Their love of humanity never factors into the wars (AGAINST humanity) in which they engage--NEVER! And that includes WWII.
This is the plain truth--about the U.S.--and all other empires who have waged war before them.
The thing that drives me crazy is that so many of his own people actually BELIEVE that he has altruistic motives. Puhleese. Get a brain. Give me a bastard who acknowledges he's one over someone who repeatedly demonstrates his penchant for evil but claims he's waging it for the good of the people--his own and those of the country he's invading.
Now if we're talking about building up our defences to stave off the Americans from pillaging this nation, I'll readily change my tune--albeit such a goal is but a pipedream--unless of course one of you can tell me how we could ever pull it off.
In the meantime, let's do what the American government will never do for its own people--never ever--and continue to spend our tax monies on universal health care, feeding our poor, and generally putting all our political will and resources into making Canada a nation where people--all its people--come first. Now THAT would be an accomplishment. To paraphrase Rick Mercer--Canadians love a challenge--we're up to it.
-
And that's a good thing. I mean I didn't return to Canada to face a whole influx of Americans. May the border between the two countries ever remain. It's not that I don't love Americans but I love them even more when they remain stateside.
-
I'm pleased to hear that you believe many of the buyers are insecure women and teenagers. Who's guiding teenage purchases? Parents or advertisers? On average who would you say has the most clout? Probably peers but then again who ultimately is setting the standard?
And why do you think there are so many insecure women about? Take the diet industry for instance--they're making gobs of money based on insecurity orchestrated by all forms of media. Sorry, caesar, allthough you undoubtedly know the audience in your circle of friends, your example is still anecdotal. Sales tell the story. I would be interested in learning from you examples of ads you personally consider acceptable.
-
Interesting, caesar, that you think most of the women you know are not taken in by all the ads. Perhaps your women friends are more consumer savvy than most.
Advertisers are known to target women for all manner of products. One example of very sophisticated marketing aimed at women is in the cosmetic field. In N.A. over 30 billion dollars of products were sold in 2000. You can bet sales were even higher in 04. So, yes, women are being reeled in by the ads.
Advertisers sell image and use every devious device to do it. T.V. programming is not put together simply for entertainment. It's a package deal and everything is orchestrated to dovetail. Most programs on t.v. show slim, good looking, sexy, fashionably dressed, well groomed, coifed and made-up women. Then there are the t.v., newspaper and magazine ads which are created to emphasize the images seen on t.v. and in movies. T.V. and print models who are ultra-slim and beautiful are the norm in advertising.
Funny, though, most people will tell you that they are not affected by advertising one way or t'other. Well, common sense tells us that that is simply not the case. Advertising sells--big time. Period.
From my perspective ads are becoming more objectionable by the year as is the entertainment fare that abounds in our society. Someone is buying into the advertising crap and since most purchases are made by women, let's guess who's primarily being bamboozled.
-
deleted duplication
-
I didn't like Babble either--I find they're a closed clique, so don't bother posting there any more. Too bad, really, especially as most of them are liberals who believe in free speech. I've even had some of my posts deleted, yet was never told why. Even wrote to one of the moderators to ask why. Never received a reply.
As to the subject matter, I think we women have been sold a bill of goods. My observation is that to maintain a high profile on t.v. a woman has to look both young and beautiful (with mighty few exceptions). Some of those women delivering the newscasts drive me to distraction. They may be both slim and beautiful but too many of them are clutzes when it comes to reading the news. In all newscasters I like a well modulated voice and no nodding of the head when emphasizing some of the words--which also drives me nuts. To my way of thinking when a word is enunciated with emphasis you're into a form of editorializing.
And one other thing, I don't much care about a newscaster's race, religion or colour, but I expect them to speak in a Canadian voice. There's a gal on the Discovery channel who is terribly, terribly English. Her accent would be just fine in any situation other than in a job that requires her to communicate effectively to Canadians. I see those of colour reporting the news who have great, clear voices. My point is that in newscasting, I want the best communicator and short of being unkempt, the excellent voice rules.
Sorry, I've rambled on enough.
Junior is mad--quite, quite mad
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Insanity, said Albert Einstein, is doing the same thing over and over again but
expecting different results.
Tawasakm, you have no more facts as you put it than I do. Just because something resides in a book or several books does not mean it is a fact. That's precisely the trouble today, everyone likes to look to the "experts" for their authority. Few, including you it seems, try to consider the "facts" by filtering them through their own observations to see if there appears to be "a fit."
Psychologists and psychiatrists are forever disagreeing with one another--now that's a fact.
Where did I say that my opinion was based on one book? said I liked to quote from that book.
Well, if you're basing your opinions here primarily on quotes from one book, that implies an extremely narrow view of a subject which is exceedingly complex.
As I recall you presented as 'evidence' a psychotic who made up an illness for Bush. Your common sense does not leave me stunned.
That's good as my intention was not to stun you but to make you aware that it is a very useful tool with which to separate the wheat from the chaffe.
But in any event, I never said I agreed with the author's definitive diagnosis; instead, I said "his (the author's) article reflects what many of us opposed to Junior's policies have intuitively already figured out; namely, that the man is psychologically seriously ill. By the way I find it fascinating that your main refutation of Levy's argument is that he is psychotic. Whoa, Nelly, that sounds like biased thinking to me. Pin a label on the guy and you can dismiss his line of reasoning. Faulty logic as I recall.
In any event, so sorry you don't like what Levy has to say. Well, what would you expect from a bloody psychotic.
So, try this one on.
The argument people opposed to my position sometime make is that I don't KNOW Junior and therefore I have no business assessing him as insane. Of course, I don't know Junior, but I've had a good deal of time to observe his actions--ones which have wreaked mayhem, instability, torture, dismemberment, and death upon hundreds of thousands if not millions of people--all supposedly in the name of freedom. The fact, too, that Junior likes to spread freedom to countries which he thinks he can defeat is no less interesting. If I knew someone personally who displayed similar disdain for the sanctity of life (well, except for fetuses--it's just those little urchins in Iraq, Afghanistan, and those residing in U.S. inner cities who are dispensable--some more skewed thinking by Junior), I'd do everything humanly possible to have the person committed for further study--and quickly. And while I don't have a background in psychology, I do recognize a bonefide nut case when I observe one. It's really too bad that you and others don't, cuz his behaviour is only going to get worse unless there are steps to have him removed from office. We certainly don't want him to continue emulating the likes of Hitler who, of course, wasn't insane either. Right!
C'mon now, you can't let me have the last say, can you? How about kimmy who you came so readily to the defence of--yeah, maybe she could spell you off for awhile. In the meantime, I'm going to split this popsicle stand and move on--yet again.