Except, of course, that Congressman Stark is right on the mark. Bush is in fact a clinical psychopath who feels no real compassion toward other people. All the signs are there. Blowing up frogs as a child for entertainment. His first taste of fame at Yale in the 60's when he was caught branding new pledges at his fraternity, and being quoted in even the New York Times as saying it was nothing more than a "cigarette burn." Late great writer Hunter S. Thompson tracked down one of these Yale classmates for this article in Rolling Stone:
"He burned this into my flesh with a red-hot poker," he said solemnly, "and I have hated him ever since. That jackass was born cruel. He burned me in the back while I was blindfolded. This scar will be with me forever."
And, well, his tenure as Governor of Texas and his apparent gleeful enthusiasm for capital punishment - some might say unlawfully gleeful in signing people off to the execution chamber. And conservative commentator Tucker Carlson got an interesting insight into Bush that rings very true today.
As always, the outrage meter on the right is directly proportional to their inability launch an effective counter argument, which is actually a rarity because the right hardly never makes legitimate arguments any more. I mean, where were these same people when one of their own, John Boehner, said on September 12th on CNN Today with Wolf Blitzer that American's dying in Iraq is "a small price." Yes, certainly for him if he They merely filthy up the issue, much like their attacks on John Kerry, Cindy Sheehan, that 12-year old Frost kid, or soldiers returning from Iraq who actually have opinions.
Of course, this sociopathy is not that uncommon on the right. The motto of the conservative right is "divide and conquer" and the motto of the left is "divided we fall." The right works against everything that has made this country great and that still keeps this country strong. When given enough power, republicans tend to work unknowningly to undo it. Nixon, Reagan, and now especially Bush with his uunraveling of The Constitution (see Habeus Corpus), outright breaking of laws, and attempts to tip the delicate scales of power toward the executive branch, making fascism less of a distant possibility in this country.
Don't. Feed. The. Trolls.
So just because he attacks Bush with facts and details makes him a troll, subject to your attacks? You just successfully proved his point. Nicely done.
Oh grow up, Mike. He repeats the same things over and over and doesn't respond to any rational argument. This is the very definition of blog troll. Have you seen the past attempts at convo w/this dude? And spare me with the term "facts." Angry leftists know not the meaning of the word.
You like him b/c you share the same moonbattish view, am I right?
My, Hube, how we're on the attack these days. I guess I would be too if I were a conservative; when cornered, what else does one do? Even the likely Republican nominee is not a true Conservative, and in general those types are on the defensive. When in doubt, go with the old "attack and call names" tactic that has worked so well in the past. Unfortunately for you, I think the American people have finally realized that such tactics do not translate into good policy.
I don't necessarily agree with all Rabit says, and I've argued against him on certain post. I just think that the attack you made was unjustified and unproductive, done because you couldn't argue against the document facts he presented in his post.
How can any Bush supported or past Bush supporter try to define facts? It’s laughable. If a troll is merely someone who likes to argue, isn't that what blogging is all about anyway? At least his post is on topic. You just merely hurl insults around freely without any post-related details.
This makes me wonder - who is the real troll anyhow?
Hube - Give me a rational argument and I'll respond to it. You have not done that, and I suspect you couldn't even if you wanted to.
Seriously, I don't debate conservatives to win arguments. I don't even care to change your mind. I debate for purely selfish reasons, to sharpen MY understanding of things. I don't want to be so certain of myself, but it's easy when conservatives call you names when cornered, EVERY TIME. For the most part, conservatives seem to operate in a universe of murky, self-contradictory half-truths and outright lies.
Fundamentally, I find Lefties believe truth to be "What Is" and Righties tend to see truth as "What It Should Be." I'm pointing out facts, researchable, verifiable, ultimately undeniable facts.
Though, I do feel pity for conservatives because I know they simply don't know any better. Feed a computer bad information, it produces bad information. Atrophy your brain on nothing but junk food like Michelle Malkin, Fox News, Instapundit, New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, and Weekly Standard and it produces bad information. Don't accept anything at face value, do your own research. The internet is the best research tool on the planet.
You like him b/c you share the same moonbattish view, am I right?
I had to chuckle at that. He keeps proving my point over and over again. It's the Tanya Harding approach to winning. Can't attack an argument so you try to bust it at the kneecaps.
Sorry, Hube. America is at least 75% moonbat now. That's a lot of kneecaps.
Boy Mike, for one who wants "facts" it is a real hoot to define me as a "Bush supporter." Guess you'll get a real blast out of my Ron Paul post coming up shortly. Oh, that's right, you don't get around much, apparently, on other blogs.
I'll leave for the readers of Jokers to decide if I was out of line in calling "rabit" a troll or not. Based on his past postings, I'd bet I'd win any poll on that. After all, you could've argued Mike, why does rabit have to question Bush's very sanity and grip on reality when debating points? he calls him a "clinical psychopath" yet there's Mikey sticking up for poor little rabit. Spare me the glop. It's disgusting.
Can you not even say that Stark was out of line even if you disagree on the war?? THAT'S the very definition of moonbattery, Mike. And name calling?? You justify rabit's yet have the audacity to berate for merely calling him a TROLL??
rabit: You're a waste of time, pal. You're mind is made up. I thought Mike actually had some sense; looks like the moonbattery has infected his sorry self now.
Hube:
You're a waste of time, pal. You're mind is made up.
Of course my mind is made up, silly. It's called thought. Give it a try. I see facts, I make conclusions. Obviously, your opinion has to be supported by different facts. So, what are they? C'mon, I'm all ears. I sincerely would love to be proven wrong.
Or will you just cut and run...
I thought Mike actually had some sense; looks like the moonbattery has infected his sorry self now.
I don't know, I think everyone who disagrees with you is a moonbat.
I'll leave for the readers of Jokers to decide if I was out of line in calling "rabit" a troll or not. Based on his past postings, I'd bet I'd win any poll on that. After all, you could've argued Mike, why does rabit have to question Bush's very sanity and grip on reality when debating points? he calls him a "clinical psychopath" yet there's Mikey sticking up for poor little rabit. Spare me the glop. It's disgusting.
Not making much of a case for your own sanity here. Perhaps you never learned that not all psychopaths become Ted Bundy. It merely means an individual who lacks empathy of the suffering of others and difficulty in controling their impulses. Psychopaths can lead otherwise outwardly normal and even successful lives, including (maybe especially) in politics.
Just an interesting sidenote: Ted Bundy was on his way up the ladder of Republican politics until it was found that he killed and raped at least 30 people. Hey, I'm only presenting facts.
The continued "attack when cornered" approach. I've not become a "moonbat," as you say; the right wingers seem more and more to be out of line with the majority of Americans these days.
Did you or did you not vote for Bush in 2004? If yes, then you are a Bush supported because you helped to put that man back in office. I have no problem with civil, thoughtful discourse. If you read up, it was you who started hurling names around, thus proving the very point of the poster you wished to insult. I merely came along to point out the hypocracy.
I do not believe Bush is a psychopath or a fascist. I also find a bitter Yale alumnus to be a poor excuse for a "source."
And, I see no more fact is either Rabit or Hube's comments. In calling Rabit a troll, Hube was merely calling a spade a spade.
Even if you disagree with the war, Stark was out of line. I like how Rabit calls Hube a namecaller when he (Rabit) is defending one (Stark).
I am just distrubed by the Bushian trend of "attack" instead of actually trying to justify or defend their positions, which are often indefensible. Its how he was elected both times and its how he's lead the nation. I truly believe that we deserve better.
I am just distrubed by the Bushian trend of "attack" instead of actually trying to justify or defend their positions
The trend is larger than Bush.
I do not believe Bush is a psychopath or a fascist. I also find a bitter Yale alumnus to be a poor excuse for a "source."
Believing something doesn't make it so. I agree it's a little sketchy to base it on an anonymous source. Even if we're talking about an article by Hunter S. Thompson.
So, let's go to this largely positive article from 2000 in the New York Times, with real named sources.
Or lets go back a bit, New York Times in 1967:
NYT Nov 8, 1967
Branding Rite Laid to Yale Fraternity
Special to the New York Times
New Haven, Nov. 7 - A Yale fraternity accused by the student newspaper of burning its initiates with a brand will have its fate decided Friday by student fraternity leaders.
The fraternity, Delta Kappa Epsilon, could face the temporary closure of its house and a $1,000 fine resulting from alleged violations of rules previously passed by the Interfraternity Council, which consists of Yale's five fraternity presidents.
The charges against Delta Kappa Epsilon were made last Friday in a Yale Daily News article that accused campus fraternities of carrying on "sadistic and obscene" initiation procedures.
The charge that has caused the most controversy on the Yale campus is that Delta Kappa Epsilon applied on "hot branding iron" to the small of the back of its 40 new members in the shape of the Greek letter Delta, approximately a half inch wide, appeared with the article.
A former president of Delta that [sic] the branding is done with a hot coathanger. But the former president, George Bush, a Yale senior, said that the resulting wound is "only a cigarette burn."
Or perhaps you remember all the conservative outrage over a November 27, 2005 Doonesbury strip that covered the same thing.
Hey, how about some photo evidence? This picture from the Yale yearbook shows Bush executing a rather counter-productive offensive move on another player's face.
Did I call Bush a fascist? I don't think so. However, it is very clear that Bush has a very weak grasp of what a democracy is. For instance, in an interview with his then "official" biography Bob Woodward, King George said:
"I do not need to explain why I say things. — That's the interesting thing about being the President. — Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
So, to him, being president means you aren't accountable to anyone. That demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of the American system as the founding fathers very deliberately designed it.
A system with built-in redundancies, allowing for the fact that we are all human beings, that any group of people can make mistakes, that power has a corrupting influence,
Strangely my comment got partially cut off...
A system with built-in redundancies, allowing for the fact that we are all human beings, that any group of people can make mistakes, that power has a corrupting influence, and a system that can keep this country going strong even if we elect the wrong people. Like, say, a vicious, paranoid sociopaths with a high-school understanding of America's system of governing.
Even if you disagree with the war, Stark was out of line. I like how Rabit calls Hube a namecaller when he (Rabit) is defending one (Stark).
Well, let's see where this Pete Stark comes from.
Grew up in a republican household, changed to Democrat over opposition to Vietnam war, two years in the Air Force, MIT graduate in engineering, MBA at UC Berkeley, in his early 30's started Security National Bank growing it to $100 million in 10 years, has been a US representative for 35 years.
Sorry Charlie, you ain't ever gonna win this battle. You can't reach his kneecaps. I doubt you can reach his toe.
I keep presenting very clear facts that you republicans voted for, twice, a clinical psycopath to run this country into the ground.
Hube cut and ran.
um, aren't soldiers heads being blown off for no good reason?
I mean they have proved we aren't safer.
went to war on lies.
it is a civil war we are tamping down.
and they are worse off then before we freed them.
where is this guy wrong?
say "bahhhhh" little sheep.
Hahah! Right on the mark, Donviti. Conservatism is getting harder and harder to distinguish from religious cult movements. Like any self-sustaining, parasitic cult movement in our culture, it starts by redefining "truth" to serve itself (the liberal mainstream media, blahblahblah), installing a general sense of fear of the world that is crumbling around them (islamofascists, liebral baby killers, men marrying each other, whoowhooowhoo), a belief that they are part of something bigger and far more complex than they themselves can really ever understand. Simply imbed those same seeds of confusion into a new generation of conservatives, and you have a new generation of weak-minded automatons.
The human brain desires simplicity and consistency. It's a simple evolutionary survival mechanism, that when the brain is confused by contradictions it sees the world as threatening and dangerous and reacts with fear and violence. Hence, here is exactly why conservative politicians vote almost entirely in lock-step with their party leaders, and why they are far more effective at fighting for their causes than Democrats. Fear is a powerful motivation force.
Commenting by HaloScan
