Conservative VS Liberal

[leroyspuds 0]

My brother is developmentally disabled and I can tell you it hurts him deeply when the word retard is used. It's no different than calling someone faggot, nigger, spic, kike, pape, and so forth. Politics aside, people should not be ridiculed because of their sexual orientation, ethnic origin, religion or disability.

I enjoy reading everyone's posts on this thread. You are all very knowledgable. Fellow Democrats and Obama supporters, let's not discredit ourselves by personally attacking others for expressing their opinions and resorting to name calling. It makes us no better than those who do the same.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh, but even if I had, him calling someone else a retard would not be acceptable to me. Also, I could care less about what Palin considers acceptable or not. MOST people do not find Retard or Niger acceptable terms to call ANYONE. Now, you can stand with tdslf1 on that, and say those terms are just fine, as Sarah Palin did with Rush or you can admit that they are not. What will it be?

One thing I have noticed with you. Everything is okay and acceptable to you because someone on the right has done a similar thing and it was okay by the right. Don't you have your own opinion on things, or do you need to judge the acceptableness of things by what others do? Your policy: (if you can do it, so can we) 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Let me tell you, that if someone, and I don't care who it is, on the right, like a tea partier, called someone else a retard or a niger I would reprimand that person if I could. I would come right out and tell them that if they are going to offend others in that way, then they should not be associated with me. Tea partiers have always voiced that. They do NOT want anyone calling anyone derogatiry names like niger or retard. We do not advocate that or violence of any klind. If there is any form of violence or name calling, it is a select minority who are not acting as the majority would.(these are strongly opposed by the rest of us) Unlike the protesting assemblies of the democratic party of the past, which were violent and dangerous, the Tea partiers are peaceful assemblers who only voice their disapproval of the government and its policies.

First of all, you are the one who, when I post pictures of the racists, nazi, etc.. signs about Pres. Obama, you then post the ones about bush. When I post pictures of violence about the teabaggers, you post pictures of violence about those on the left. And then you accuse ME of doing this? What a hypocrit!!!!

Secondly, you have posted offensive remarks about me: You have asked me "are you black or something"?, said that "makes me a racist", that I am "a racist and that I don't like white people" and told me that I am hateful.

So, don't try to come off as some Pollyhanna to me with your "I would reprimand anyone who used those terms" You use plenty of offensive terms.

And I'm still waiting for your source for the numbers about the healthcare costs.

[LeighaMason 19]

Most of the mortgage lending sins were motivated by zealous liberal legislators who thought everyone deserves a mortgage regardless of their economic circumstances. I blame them.

The Republicans had the majority and the vote was split clearly by party lines. Only 1 democrat voted for the bill.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill passed 54-44. [s. 900, Vote #105, 5/6/99] (This is the bill that deregulated the home lending industry)

This is a very interesting article written in Nov. 1999 by Martin McLaughlin that warns of the deregulation of banks:

"The proposed deregulation will increase the degree of monopolization in finance and worsen the position of consumers in relation to creditors. Even more significant is its impact on the overall stability of US and world capitalism. The bill ties the banking system and the insurance industry even more directly to the volatile US stock market, virtually guaranteeing that any significant plunge on Wall Street will have an immediate and catastrophic impact throughout the US financial system."

"And there is a much more recent experience than 1929 to serve as a cautionary tale. A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities markets would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout."

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system | Piggington's Econo-Almanac | San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

So sorry Patty, I know you want to blame the financial crisis on the minorities but its just not true.

Edited May 11, 2010 by LeighaMason
clarify

[tdslf1 0]

Calm down tiger. You went way beyond the pail. I, in this forum, am not talking about, nor expressing an opinion about handicap people nor the N word. I am expressing my opinion about righties who say offensive rhetoric about my president. I have that right, regardless of whether the way I say it offends you or not. They don't give a damn how they say it. I am under no obligation to make you feel good about how I say it in a rant and rave forum.

Never mind that this convo has nothing to do with those words. You be offended by those words. I used them here as a description of backward commentators. Does not offend me to use it in this way. It would be offensive if I were talking about the handicap. I am not, we all are adults, most of us are capable of understanding my meaning. Some of us want to get bogged down in my freedom of expression. Get bogged down, I won't.

Since we have such people with such low sensibility standards that words like baby killer about the president is acceptable for ANY tea bagger and commentator from Fake Noise to say yet those same folks get all bent because of the word retard, is beyond me. I respect that. That is the point. I don't like terrorist, pro-death, sympathizer or any other name my president has been called. It offends me. So don't use it for reference, condition or a description for policies from my president and I won't use words that offend you.

As was expressed before, this is the rant and rave section. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. As long as I don't call you names and I am ranting about an abstract concept of people, don't try to sensor me.

[tdslf1 0]

leroy said,

My brother is developmentally disabled and I can tell you it hurts him deeply when the word retard is used. It's no different than calling someone faggot, nigger, spic, kike, pape, and so forth. Politics aside, people should not be ridiculed because of their sexual orientation, ethnic origin, religion or disability.

I enjoy reading everyone's posts on this thread. You are all very knowledgable. Fellow Democrats and Obama supporters, let's not discredit ourselves by personally attacking others for expressing their opinions and resorting to name calling. It makes us no better than those who do the same.

I don't recall me using this term for you , your brother, PG, or any handicap person. That is not the context. Just as PG posting what she just posted about the N word. That word offends me but I didn't and don't get bogged down in the wording but understand her context. You understand that context. Extend that same courtesy this way with my usage and don't get bent out of shape for the wrong concept which is PG's apparent pathway to rightousness. Her distractions are not my concern.

[ariscus99 1]

Calm down tiger. You went way beyond the pail. I, in this forum, am not talking about, nor expressing an opinion about handicap people nor the N word. I am expressing my opinion about righties who say offensive rhetoric about my president. I have that right, regardless of whether the way I say it offends you or not. They don't give a damn how they say it. I am under no obligation to make you feel good about how I say it in a rant and rave forum.

Never mind that this convo has nothing to do with those words. You be offended by those words. I used them here as a description of backward commentators. Does not offend me to use it in this way. It would be offensive if I were talking about the handicap. I am not, we all are adults, most of us are capable of understanding my meaning. Some of us want to get bogged down in my freedom of expression. Get bogged down, I won't.

Since we have such people with such low sensibility standards that words like baby killer about the president is acceptable for ANY tea bagger and commentator from Fake Noise to say yet those same folks get all bent because of the word retard, is beyond me. I respect that. That is the point. I don't like terrorist, pro-death, sympathizer or any other name my president has been called. It offends me. So don't use it for reference, condition or a description for policies from my president and I won't use words that offend you.

As was expressed before, this is the rant and rave section. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. As long as I don't call you names and I am ranting about an abstract concept of people, don't try to sensor me.

Why does someone saying something bad about the president offend you? Aren't people allowed their opinions of the president?

[leroyspuds 0]

"I see now that we are at war, any kind of war you like to categorize it as and I will be darned if the lefties get guilted into backing off. I'm on it like white on rice and I will stay on it as long as my president continues to get attacked by the gnomes on the right."

tdslf1, I just think we hurt our cause by stooping to the level of others. One of the things I admire most about our president is his ability to take the high road.

"We can’t expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate, the one we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."

BARACK OBAMA, remarks at University of Michigan, May 1, 2010

"We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey. For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass."

BARACK OBAMA, Nobel Lecture, Dec. 10, 2009

[tdslf1 0]

I am not offended by peoples logically arguments about the president. When his policies are talked about people can say what they like. I am however offended when he is called baseless names like terrorist, baby killer, and a whole host of garbage by the lame, subprime retards such as limpbiscuit and beck. This offends me and many others and I will defend him accordingly because we are all americans, him included and there is no need to call him code names to get the uneducated hyped up about him.

[ariscus99 1]

I am not offended by peoples logically arguments about the president. When his policies are talked about people can say what they like. I am however offended when he is called baseless names like terrorist, baby killer, and a whole host of garbage by the lame, subprime retards such as limpbiscuit and beck. This offends me and many others and I will defend him accordingly because we are all americans, him included and there is no need to call him code names to get the uneducated hyped up about him.

You felt the same way when Bush was attacked by the left and called so many names I can't recall them all, and dozens of books, newspaper and magazine articles were written about him, with no other purpose then to name call? Articles that claimed he had Downs syndrome, autism, etc. etc.? These all offended you as well right? Because they were baseless and Bush is American like the rest of us?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You felt the same way when Bush was attacked by the left and called so many names I can't recall them all, and dozens of books, newspaper and magazine articles were written about him, with no other purpose then to name call? Articles that claimed he had Downs syndrome, autism, etc. etc.? These all offended you as well right? Because they were baseless and Bush is American like the rest of us?

I would be interested in where those articles are that claimed bush had autism or Downs syndrome. I have been following political news for over 10 years and while bush has been portrayed as not the brightest bulb in the pack and his inability to speak extemperaneously and his screw ups have been well documented and rove was called bush's brain - I don't recall any media coverage of these things being said about bush. Oh, there might be some extremist website but I don't recall them being discussed on mainstream media like all the birthers and deathers and other whackos on the right are.

[ariscus99 1]

I would be interested in where those articles are that claimed bush had autism or Downs syndrome. I have been following political news for over 10 years and while bush has been portrayed as not the brightest bulb in the pack and his inability to speak extemperaneously and his screw ups have been well documented and rove was called bush's brain - I don't recall any media coverage of these things being said about bush. Oh, there might be some extremist website but I don't recall them being discussed on mainstream media like all the birthers and deathers and other whackos on the right are.

"The Dyslexicon of George W. Bush" by Mark Miller is one. Dr. Jack Dresser, wrote several papers on the matter, as well as diagnosing President Bush with adult ADHD, without ever so much as meeting the man. Dr. Joseph Price also diagnosed him with pre senile dementia, again without ever meeting him. "The Superpower Syndrome" by Robert Lifton of Harvard also speaks about it. Justin Frank MD from George Washington Univ also wrote a book about it. Pretty extremist fringe people here, they have no influence on anyone to spread that nonsense it's not like they're college professors or anything, oh wait.

Edited May 11, 2010 by ariscus99

[tdslf1 0]

Ari said,

You felt the same way when Bush was attacked by the left and called so many names I can't recall them all, and dozens of books, newspaper and magazine articles were written about him, with no other purpose then to name call? Articles that claimed he had Downs syndrome, autism, etc. etc.? These all offended you as well right? Because they were baseless and Bush is American like the rest of us?

I'm not worried about Bush and the people who bashed him. I was not aware of all those names. I did hear him being called a terrorist, because of the war. I hear Obama being called a terrorist because of his name, his background and his associates. Bush being called a terrorist, I can understand to a certain extent why someone would place that name on him even though it is not true. I understand how one would make that type of mental jump. There is a little gap in reality but not that big a gap.I get where they come from, but I don't think he is.

Obama's name calling has no bridge from point to point. The chasm between his name and being a terrorist is too far a bridge for me to cross and most logically, open minded people. It all started with his name. His name, baseless. His dad was a muslim, Obama is not. Baseless. The people he knows who might have radical ideas, baseless. Calling him a socialist, which he is not. He was born here just like us. Baseless.

Like I said, I have no problem with people who have problems with his policy. But I do have a problem with people who call him socialist, terrorist and an illegitimate president, because then their argument about policy becomes null and void. Where does one go when arguing to one of those birther people? Nowhere and I label them wacko accordingly.

Edited May 11, 2010 by tdslf1

[ariscus99 1]

I'm not worried about Bush and the people who bashed him. I was not aware of all those names. I did hear him being called a terrorist, because of the war. I hear Obama being called a terrorist because of his name, his background and his associates. Bush being called a terrorist, I can understand to a certain extent why someone would place that name on him even though it is not true. I get where they come from, but I don't think he is.

Obama's name calling is way off base. It all started with his name. His name, baseless. His dad was a muslim, he is not. Baseless. The people he knows who might have radical ideas, baseless.

Like I said, I have no problem with people who have problems with his policy. But I do have a problem with people who call him socialist, terrorist and an illegitimate president because this make arguing about policy, null and void. Where does one go when arguing to one of those birther people? Nowhere and I label them wacko accordingly.

Very convenient. You don't care what they said then, but now, oh boy. He does have socialist style policies he'd like to bring forward. And he's surrounded himself with admitted socialist and communist, and people who are terrorist. So if someone calls him those things, it's not entirely surprising. If you hang out with a certain group of people it's quite likely you'll be associated and called whatever it is that they are ie liberals, conservative, gangster, rocker etc. etc.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

"The Dyslexicon of George W. Bush" by Mark Miller is one. Dr. Jack Dresser, wrote several papers on the matter, as well as diagnosing President Bush with adult ADHD, without ever so much as meeting the man. Dr. Joseph Price also diagnosed him with pre senile dementia, again without ever meeting him. "The Superpower Syndrome" by Robert Lifton of Harvard also speaks about it. Justin Frank MD from George Washington Univ also wrote a book about it. Pretty extremist fringe people here, they have no influence on anyone to spread that nonsense it's not like they're college professors or anything, oh wait.

From Publishers Weekly

Miller, a New York University professor of media studies, has fashioned a devastating compendium of President George W. Bush's grammatical gaffes, syntactical shipwrecks, mind-boggling malapropisms and simply dumb comments. Page after page (after page) of quotations, suggests Miller, reveal that Bush is a man who, while not stupid, is prodigiously illiterate and woefully uneducated. Further, and compounding the problem, Bush could not care less about these shortcomings. How then, Miller asks, and this is his larger concern, did someone in Miller's opinion so obviously unqualified to be president convince so many voters that he was? Miller's answer is, in a word, television: Bush succeeded on TV not despite his "utter superficiality," but because his superficiality blended seamlessly with the vacuous culture of the tube. It was not simply that Bush's handlers were able to manipulate his image, attempting to construct out of his ignorance an anti-intellectual "good ole boy" persona, but that news professionals in the medium were all too willing to go along with this ploy. They went along because the pundits of TV have become, according to Miller, increasingly right-wing, thus natural Bush allies, but also because they no longer care to talk about substance, preferring instead discussion of "likability" and other attributes of pure image. While Miller is sometimes vague in his arguments, he has produced a sharp-edged polemic questioning the wisdom of how we elect our leaders. As President Bush has said, "It's not the way America is all about."

Copyright 2001

I don't think mainstream america would disagree with this analysis. I don't. It was an image that was prevalent in the media that he wasn't very bright and had trouble speaking when off the prompter. I hardly find Mr. Miller's views to be extremist or out there, like those criticisms of Pres. Obama are.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

A summary by Jack Dresser, Ph.D., with selected excerpts from two books:

Bush on the Couch by Justin A. Frank, M.D.

Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, George Washington University

and

The Superpower Syndrome by Robert Jay Lifton, M.D.

Distinguished Visiting Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry, Harvard University

Psychiatrist Jerrold Post, M.D., founder of the CIA’s Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior, stated, “the leader who cannot adapt to external realities because he adheres to an internally programmed life script...has displaced his private needs upon the state.” Applied psychoanalysis is a discipline used routinely by intelligence agencies since early in World War II to identify such distortions and predict political behavior through psychological profiles of foreign leaders. Although lacking the data of direct doctor-patient interaction, such analyses have far greater external data available to draw upon. Dr. Frank has applied these methods to George W. Bush. Dr. Lifton focuses on the theme of grandiosity and unresolved personal self-doubt projected into our foreign policy.

A Sense of Entitlement

A lifelong “sense of entitlement” has been exhibited by Mr. Bush, described by Washington psychoanalyst Justin Frank. Dr. Frank has published a comprehensive study of Mr. Bush’s personality, based upon his many public statements, public actions, and the historical record provided by biographers, journalists, and others who have known him well and observed him closely over many years. Specifically, Mr. Bush feels and acts entitled to disregard the laws, rules and expectations governing ordinary people.

This has taken many forms over many years. He did not have to “pay attention” at Yale, to wait his turn in line to gain safety from war in the Texas Air National Guard, to observe the law regarding intoxicated driving, to file required reports on his Harken Energy stock sales with the SEC, or to respect the will of Florida voters. His has become our national outlaw ethic. He disrespects U.S.-signed treaties to reduce global warming and nuclear proliferation, and refuses to support the International Criminal Court. This fits the romanticized American outlaw image, but is an adolescent response to problems needing complex adult solutions.

Violating a principle common to all human societies, Bush entitles himself to lie without guilt. He has misled, misrepresented, and lied outright and continuously throughout his public life. This has been witnessed and described by many observers. There are volumes of documentation by writers of impeccable reliability recounting the Bush practice of saying anything to control the perceptions of others and get what he wants.

Bush’s Orwellian descriptions that totally misrepresent known facts reveal his perceived exemption even from the laws of reality, suggesting disordered thinking. He also claims exemption from the laws of personal and public accountability. “I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation,” he told journalist Bob Woodward.

Aggression and Cruelty

This is a lifelong pattern. As a child, little George blew up frogs with firecrackers inserted into their bodies. Lacking scholastic and athletic abilities, he used unkind teasing in school. In college, he hazed new fraternity pledges with branding irons on the buttocks. As Governor he mocked death-row inmates and smirked at their executions. As a political campaigner, he relies heavily on smug ridicule and mockery of opponents.

The smirk – one of Mr. Bush’s characteristic expressions that has worried his political handlers – is a telltale indication of sadism. It reveals pleasure in inflicting or observing pain, defeat or discomfort in others while attempting to suppress more overt and unbecoming expressions of his pleasure. He is a profoundly angry, destructive man who, in Dr. Frank’s words, “needs to break things.”

Dr. Lifton extends the analysis to the appointees surrounding Bush as well, all of whom avoided Vietnam service. Lifton describes the exaggerated aggression with which people may respond to "death guilt" or "survivor guilt" – the knowledge that facing a common challenge others suffered while you didn't. This is often associated with a sense of "failed enactment" at the moment of truth. When such a wound to self esteem is repressed, it often becomes “transformed into impulses toward further violence." This may well unconsciously haunt our entire tough talking Republican leadership who hid out as young men while others died.

Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

Easily mistaken for resoluteness, Mr. Bush’s impulsiveness, snap decisions, and disinterest in abstractions or complexities are all suggestive of adult ADHD. He is impatient and easily frustrated, with poor control of his emotions. On two known occasions, he has driven his car through property barriers in fits of temper. And of course, the continuing indications of dyslexia: Dr. Frank observes, “He may seem decisive, but his behavior represents the fall-back position of someone trying to manage the anxiety of not being able to think clearly.”

Defensive Dyslexia. Mr. Bush has learned to use his legendary difficulties with language to avoid meaningful communication, to obfuscate meanings for tactical concealment. Unable to think and communicate with language in normal ways, he has learned to use it manipulatively – to attack, dismiss, distract and intimidate, to control rather than communicate with others. Most alarming is his genuine inability to think clearly and to develop cognitive models that even remotely match the complex realities for which he is responsible.

Untreated alcoholism.

Mr. Bush displays common characteristics of a “dry drunk,” struggling to protect self-esteem and cope with anxiety without the liquid crutch. Symptoms include inflated self-confidence, judgmental intolerance, denial of responsibility, avoidance of introspection, simplistic thinking, and compulsive daily habits that remove him from responsibility and stress. Without treatment, the alcohol is removed without the “ism.” Instead, self-esteem is now protected by his born-again Christianity, which permits escape from accountability for his past while avoiding the self-examination and restitution of a 12-step program. Many of his actions are “dry” efforts to reduce anxiety by avoiding his inner world. In Dr. Frank’s words, “Throughout his life, George W. Bush has taken many detours from the path to self-knowledge.”

In addition, his annual physical detected nasal spider angiomas that might suggest continued alcohol abuse, and unusually low blood pressure typical of antisocial personality incapable of normal emotional responses.

The Overall Diagnosis: Megalomania

“The evidence suggests that behind Bush’s exterior operates a powerful but obscure delusional system that drives his behavior,” concludes Dr. Frank. Omnipotence and grandiosity are clearly reflected in Mr. Bush’s identification with God’s purposes and his flouting of international opinion and international will. Omnipotent fantasy is a self-esteem protecting mechanism from early childhood, outgrown in normal development that Mr. Bush lacked. This childish omnipotence is identified and described by both authors.

Mr. Bush’s personal grandiosity has been projected onto our nation. His megalomanic narcissism and lack of ego boundaries is translated into a vision of superimposing our “Freedom” throughout the world, welcomed or not. Jealousy, a centerpiece of Bush’s psychological struggle since early childhood, is the motive attributed to “the enemy” through projection. The Bush grandiosity fits seamlessly with the neoconservative agenda, which explains Bush’s choice of Cheney as Vice President and neoconservatives Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith to the top three civilian DOD posts, as well as Richard Perls and Elliot Abrams in other key administration posts. After collapse of the Soviet Union, these neoconservatives resurrected the 19th century’s grandiose images of Manifest Destiny, the right to impose ourselves on others, that perfectly fits Mr. Bush’s megalomania.

In Dr. Frank’s judgment, “the enterprise he is poised to add to his history of failures is the future of our nation. Our collective denial helped put him in that position...Our sole treatment option – for his benefit and for ours – is to remove president Bush from office... before it is too late.”

About the Review and Reviewer Dr. Dresser is a behavioral scientist who served as an Army psychologist during the Vietnam era. He is not a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst, but feels these are important perspectives for public consideration, has attempted to carefully and concisely summarize their views, and recommends the reader to the works cited. It should be pointed out that Dr. Frank is a Kleinian psychoanalyst, but his observational foci and diagnostic conclusions would be consistent with other theories of psychological developmental as well.

These were astute observations made about bush's public persona, behavior and style. Their suggestions of a diagnosis are just that - suggestions. Again, I find nothing offensive in what they said and in fact I think they intelligently summarize bush and his behavior in the context of their knowledge of these behaviors.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Cleo's Mom