We sit here on the left, and wrack our brains about what in the hell can be going on in the minds of the few adamant Bush supporters left, and how they can stomach the mockery he has made of our institutions, our constitution, and any other tution you can think of. Apparently, it's not all that hard to figure. Bush has something, Cheney has something. Of course Hitler and Mussolini had the same thing. A bunch of pathetic types that lived vicariously by admiring their toughness. When the cat finally came out of the bag on those guys, any criticism you had for them got you a meat hook hanger suite, and the poor smuck, hanging there like a slab of beef, probably thought, man, that IS tough. It's beyond me, but then, so is torture, wiping my butt on the constitution, treason, illegal spying, and a few other minor infractions, but why pick? I guess I'm not tough enough to win these guys hearts and minds. In an article for Salon, we go through the actual nuts and bolts of the Bush supporter mindset - heavy on the nuts.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 96
They aren't Conservative enough for me these days, but it sure is fun to watch you Libs squirm over what they're doing.
And don't forget the biggest conservative victory of all- thanks to our lack of national health care, the USA is in a league with Slovakia and Rumania in infant mortality-- (6.63 deaths per 1000 live births)-- HA those idiots in places like Czeckoslovakia and Japan with HALF our infant mortality rates well, they can just eat those extra babies!
Don't worry Brett- this country is conservative where it COUNTS!!
I'm staying out of the politics of it...
:-)
Don't you see how wacky you are, Ron? You've lived a charmed life if you are able to compare America leaders to Hitler and Mussolini. So many young people make this mistake, but someone with some years behind them should not be so glib.
Is Bret now donnybushloverboy 's newest alter ??????
Anyways, things go my way, and you guys are left holding your dicks, so it's all good.
The closest we get to this sort of thing is Brian Tamaki as per my DANM-3, and you *know* how I feel about him.
I have absolutely no reservations when I say, that's a great article.
And that is my last word on this subject.
Um... to be honest Lynn...Piltdown man was a hoax. Good aliteration, but never existed. I should know I wrote a paper on it from an outdated book I found in the public library. I got a "C" on it in 1960. Maybe Neandertal would be a better term. But, we don't know if Neandertals were "clever" enough to lie and screw their fellow beings. I think our own wonderful species invented deception and cunning.
Lets see if we can become smart enough to avoid blowing ourselves up or ruining our environment. On the bright side. if the human race eliminates itself, nature will recover quite nicely. ;)
I doubt that. Uh the prosecutor said that there was so much obfuscation going on that he couldn't do his job, not that there was no treason. Not a direct quote, I realize, but I'm lazy this morning. Neocons have this disassociative thing down pat. They can't seem to remember that Armitage, at the time, was just one more loyal Bushie, working with all the other treasonous Bushies, to get that story out. No more or less treasonous than Rove, or Libby, or.......could it be?... The nation's oldest drive by shooter?..... and..........?
Yes, I am sure that Bush never gave a thought to the first crack in the armor of his WMD lies to get us to go to war in Iraq. That would be beneath him. A thing that could expose his whole regime as the liars they were, and he wasn't interested in it, or worried about it at all. Come on Don, do you think about what you are saying at all before you say it?
We're confused, you bet.
He was the admitted leaker of her name to the press, right?
Take care of yourself.
Can any of you Libs tell me why Fitzgerald didn't go after Armitage at all? I would have thought that a slam-dunk confession would have made it easy for Fitzgerald to nail down some jail time for someone in the Bush administration. Yet, Armitage is still free & never charged.
Yeah, go figure. He wrote a nice article, too. I was shocked, but it just goes to show one thing, if we spent a little more time thinking abut the things we share, and less about the things we differ on, we could actually probably compromise on a few. That's how politics used to work, but it got lost somewhere in the Bush experience. Maybe back in the Clinton one, I don't know. Either way, I doubt if anyone knows the way back, now.
Because the criminal and corrupt white house promised Libby would never go to jail if he kept his mouth shut.
All you republiCONs know that's the truth.............
IMPEACH bush/cheney NOW !!!!!!!!!!
You wanna troll, buy a boat and a pole, support the economy. This forum is an attempt to discover what chromosome damage, mental defect, genuinely evil nature, or other abomination it is that makes some of our country's mental defectives still support these brutish louts.
Since you poor slobs are clearly victims of the mental defect under consideration, your comments here are no more appropriate or welcome than the opinions of a paramecium to the biologist sitting at the microscope. You are cognitively incapable of contributing anything useful to this forum. Go to Dow Chemical, 3M, or someplace else your poison is welcome. Spread the joy.
GO TROLL SOMEWHERE ELSE, please.
Who put you in charge? You're just another nimrod liberal shooting off at the mouth... get lost.
No one has answered that question. And I love hearing Liberal spin too.
You are on a roll guy. "Republican theatre." That says it all -- with neoliberal dems as understudies. That 'should' answer Bret's question. Neocons on either side don't seem to read history or keep track of even relatively current events, but their biggest deficit -- aside from the fiscal one -- is that they think they are invincible. Such good little soldiers.
Why can't Libs answer it straight away?
Probably because its too damaging to their agenda. If they actually answered this question, they'd understand that they have no case at all. Facts are funny that way.
I like you, but sometimes you get the idea you are right about something that is so obviously not the way you perceive it to be. If you are trying to needle me, you should know by now it doesn't work well. My actual take on it is that they never figured on Armitage being outed. Armitage, though at the time a loyal Bushie, would now, having been badly treated, probably spill all he knows, which would be very embarrassing to the White House. I don't believe that Fitzgerald was ever interested in bringing anyone to justice in this case, and I also believe that Libby was the designated fall guy from the start. Precisely because he was ultra loyal to Cheney, he would fall on his sword, and a commute of his sentence was predetermind as is an eventual pardon, on his way out of office by Bush. As I tried to say above, this was Republican Theatre, from a Republican CIA, to a Republican DOJ, to a Republican Prosecutor. I hate to burst your bubble but treason was committed, that is evident, and it is also evident that it went back into Cheney's office, and with the complicity of Rove. Rove could have been charged with exactly what Libby was charged with, but Fitzgerald gave him a pass, on his own judgment only. Why? Because he didn't need him, he had Libby, and as long as there was someone getting prosecuted, the world would settle for whatever meat was fed to the grinder. He could act outraged when Bush commuted his sentence, and everyone would think he did his job. Now, I know you don't believe a word of it, and I'm wondering why you made me write all this out, just to satisfy your sick sense of humor.
Treason? And just how will that ever be proven? Hell, they barely got a conviction on a second level guy for obstruction.
This conspiracy nonsense is out of hand on Gather. But I do love hearing these truly outlandish charges. The funniest part is how it all fits together perfectly. Isn't this a guy you Libs think is a total idiot? And now he's suddenly putting together something worthy of Rube Goldberg? I love that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any idea how much evidence you'd have to have to accuse a President of treason? Its a lot more than the perfect puzzle you've put together here on Gather.
You are a prime example of the people this article talks about. Have a good day, live your pathetic little life feeding off of the power. I hope it's worth tha damage done to our country to you.
If you are on the level, you better learn where your stuff is appropriate, if not, eat me, and get your stupid spam off my article.
Oh, Hugh... I mean DONNIE - if ONLY that were true. *snicker*
Although I appreciate the dialog your article has sparked, it brings out the inherent flaws in Liberal thinking, and highlights the lack of logic to the world.
For instance : what prosecutor would take on the President of the United States without a MOUNTAIN of absolutely airtight evidence?
Or
How many of these Conspiracy Theories should a Federal Prosecutor investigate before he throws up his hands in utter disgust at all the unprovable accusations?
I AM trying to needle you, Ron, but in a way that will flay open the fallacy that something nefarious happened when it obviously didn't. And even if it did, how would you prove it?
Even when I attempt to show you just how much evidence you'd have to have to convict President Bush, you try to scurry away without answering any of my straightforward questions. Example : I asked you about 20 bubbles up why Dick Armitage wasn't charged in this case. Your response : Republican theatre? Nah, how about this : Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald said he realized that Armitage's outing of Valerie Plame was an accident.
Would that be too easy for a Liberal Conspiracy theorist to digest? Judging from the silly responses on this topic, and this thread, I think it is.
Ron -- what exactly did Bush do in this case? Lay down the charge and the evidence... even circumstantial... I will take anything you got (which I know is nothing).
I can assure everyone in this forum that neither the Generals nor President Carter, nor most of the world felt or believed they were no longer relevant- because they know and are comfortable with their own relevance. The paranoid Bush Administration, however, is VERY insecure with their 'relevance'.
So our subjects protest loudly "we ARE relevant" -- but let's look at their own words-
which by the way are again, off topic. (and an aside to the paramecium-- Who put me 'in charge'? Why? Is it important to you that someone be 'in charge'? Is it important that the person in charge be on 'your side' (and vice-versa?). Wouldn't well behaved adults who post ON-TOPIC not need someone to be "in charge"? Aren't you starting to feel like an ignorant little dick who has picked a fight with a bigger, stronger kid (the American people)? And you really, really need your favorite bully to come and rescue you, and you know that your only hope to maintain dignity is to somehow pray that some miracle will occur, gas will drop to $1 a gallon, and the Iraqis will start throwing free Bar-Mitzvahs for Jewish kids), and you will finally be vindicated?)
... But I digress: back to a brief analysis of a few words which carry greater weight than their authors realize.-- "I think its hilarious how the Bush administration constantly annoys Liberals". Now what the hell does that mean? That the subject get personal enjoyment from political conflict ? That anyone who disagrees with the Bush Administration must be a "liberal"? That the subject doesn't understand the concept of competing political philosophies? No, by posting that comment in this forum the subject was attempting to validate his position- in part by provoking those studying his species. If the experimenter responds angrily, the subject's self-esteem level is increased- if a 'liberal' is angry with him, then he is worthy of attracting anger- he is almost 'as much of a human' as the liberal. Seeking self-validation by attracting anger is a favorite tactic of two-year olds-- the "Terrible Twos" are famous for this sort of 'defiance as a definition of self'.
The second comment may be more telling- -"For instance : what prosecutor would take on the President of the United States without a MOUNTAIN of absolutely airtight evidence". This neatly dovetails with the bully/overcommitted sycophant model-- the subject is saying, in essence, "you don't even DARE take on MY bully". Again, no reference is made to logic, justice, ethics, the constitution, and the practical considerations of gathering evidence against a group that has suborned the justice department .
Third comment --"Just another nimrod liberal shooting off at the mouth"-- no, Dopey, YOU'RE shooting off at the mouth, WE'RE analyzing idiots like you and trying to find out what is freakin' WRONG with you. At least on that try, you finally got the US capitalization for the word "liberal" correct.
The results of this first (admittedly brief) experimental procedure are, therefore, as follows:
The subject can be stimulated by poking it with its own favorite weapon ("hey you- you're irrelevant". The response obtained is a high squeaking noise, followed by name-calling of a nature which is a non-sequitur in and of itself humorous ("Nimrod", you shoeless, brainless moron, was a Biblical character, of little notice, later rabbinical stories tell us more- most of it bad- Nimrod was actually quite a bit like George Bush! That's the problem with remembering only the things you learned in the playground at recess)
After squeaking and issuing a schoolyard insult, the subject told the experimenter to "Get lost" As with all bullies and their sychophants, when confronted by someone who is prepared to, and knows how to fight, they simply wish for the problem to go away. Keep in mind the title of this forum. We are trying to figure out WHY you exhibit aberrant behavior, we already know what you think about these issues, and we DON'T CARE about it. We ARE interested in what makes humans behave in such a nonproductive manner.
An operating hypothesis based upon the experimental evidence is:
The subjects have little regard for their fellow- subjects- their only concern is to 'bond' with a powerful dominant member. Once 'bonded', they are so terrified of being proven wrong, and looking stupid they cannot deal with that reality. I liken this child you watch break a vase, who insists "I didn't do it". You know they're wrong, they know they're wrong, but they simply are constitutionally incapable of facing it without cognitive meltdown. "Magical thinking" (Hoping to be proven right, while all the doubters admire your resolve and determination, admitting they were wrong, and you were right all along) seems to prevail whenever the consequences of their support for the bully are mentioned
The subjects have little regard for themselves, as evidenced by
a- the overwhelming need to find a 'dominant member'- lack of self-esteem
b- defining the self as it relates to the 'bully' (as a sycophant) and to the "schoolmates" as an antagonizer, protected by the bully
c- lack of ability to spell, and use proper capitalization and punctuation. (Probably poorly educated). Lack of clear thinking. Lack of Maturity (this is common with subjects under 30)
Further research by other experimenters is welcome.
Thanks for the dime-store analysis, it was entertaining.
The discussion is what this is all about here on Gather. You can look down your nose and into a Petri dish to examine those you don't agree with, but you'll be relegated to sidebar status when you do that.
Wouldn't it be better in a format like this to join in when you have something reasonable about the topic at hand to say? Right now you're just an outsider peeking in the window from the cold, cursing those who won't share their turkey, mashed potatoes, and cranberry sauce with you.
What I find most interesting is that liberals can't stand dissent. This forum is a perfect example. Two of us hold a different view and guys like Robert freak out and tell us to go away -- we are not welcome here. And then he says "As with all bullies and their sychophants, when confronted by someone who is prepared to, and knows how to fight, they simply wish for the problem to go away." Uh, I think it was you who first said I should go away and that I was not welcome. Reading comprehension... try it out sometime big boy.
Here's the bit:
Associates of Bilal Abdulla, the doctor "who is accused of riding a flaming Jeep into Glasgow's international airport on Saturday, say he was a religious zealot and a lone wolf whose anger about political developments in Iraq may have driven him to an act of terrorism."
Link to larger story:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4944263.html
Although I appreciate the dialog your article has sparked, it brings out the inherent flaws in Liberal thinking, and highlights the lack of logic to the world.
For instance : what prosecutor would take on the President of the United States without a MOUNTAIN of absolutely airtight evidence?"
Are you totally brain dead? Archibald Cox, and Jaworski did, had damn near nothing concrete till they got the tapes, and Ken Starr, what can I say, he went in investigating a real estate deal, had nothing, couldn't make a squeak there, so he shifted to sexual harassment, had nothing, couldn't make a squeak there, and ended up setting Clinton up for a couple of charges just like Libby's, with the minor difference that Clinton was acquitted, Starr couldn't even prove those charges, and Libby was found guilty. Talk about lack of logic, how about you can't even remember history for a whole decade.
"How many of these Conspiracy Theories should a Federal Prosecutor investigate before he throws up his hands in utter disgust at all the unprovable accusations?"
Uh, one, that was way more than a theory, would be nice.
"I AM trying to needle you, Ron, but in a way that will flay open the fallacy that something nefarious happened when it obviously didn't. And even if it did, how would you prove it?"
Oh, by investigating it with an intent to actually convict someone besides the designated fall guy, I suppose. How bout we try that once?
"Even when I attempt to show you just how much evidence you'd have to have to convict President Bush, you try to scurry away without answering any of my straightforward questions."
I answered you twice, bonehead, but you're foaming at the mouth so much at having a needle in your hand, I doubt you even read them.
"Example : I asked you about 20 bubbles up why Dick Armitage wasn't charged in this case. Your response : Republican theatre? Nah, how about this : Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald said he realized that Armitage's outing of Valerie Plame was an accident."
Oh, Fitzgerald said so, the Republican Prosecutor that decided Rove "just forgot" without letting a jury decide the matter, said so. Why didn't you say so Bret, that makes all the difference. NOT. He never intended to fry anything but guppies, bank on it.
"Would that be too easy for a Liberal Conspiracy theorist to digest? Judging from the silly responses on this topic, and this thread, I think it is."
Would it be too hard for you to realize not everyone believes every lie these guys tell, like you do? They have done nothing but lie from day one, many, many times it's been proven they lied, and you still take it as the gospel. These guys have you strung up like a marionette. You couldn't find your own dick to take a leak without them pulling your strings for you.
Our troops + Iraqi soil = ????
GATHER is an open forum- start a topic yourself, if you have the creative spark for it. Start a topic on Cheney, Wolfy, Scooter, or even me if you want. If you feel it necessary to comment in THIS forum, why don't you stay on-topic, and help us figure out just what the hell is wrong with you.
Once again, while attempting dispassionate analysis, I am told I am a fool. and again asked to leave, when every one of MY posts has been painfully on-subject-- although yours seem to have done a good job of diverting us to other areas, like your beloved "liberal conspiracy threorists". Start a thread on "liberal conspiracy theorists" if you want, but don't post your poison here or in say, a fly-fishing thread.
Oh, and in my office, that "Dime store analysis" (Very original- do you write RNC talking points?) will cost your ass $200 an hour.
I'm not a high-school guidance counselor, and I'm not sitting in the cold, watching you eat turkey with cranberry sauce. I'm in my 12 room antique Arts-and-Crafts style house, with a wisteria-canopied hottub in the back. I'm 52 and semi-retired. If I look out the original bubble-glass window I can see my Jeep and Miata- the wife is out in her Subaru WRX. I sold the old Mercedes 280 SEL, and my wife sold her Yamaha. Both our upstairs and downstairs hallways are showcases for original artwork. We support several charitable and progressive foundations. It will be a very, very long time before I am relegated to a sidebar. I hope your pals George and Dick make sure you're as comfortable as I am.
I once again, ask you to refrain from posting hate and poison- Your first comment here, off-topic, angry, baiting, and unhelpful I post below.
"I think its hilarious how the Bush administration constantly annoys Liberals. Its as if they know your game plan and they go out of their way to throw a wrench in your plans.
They aren't Conservative enough for me these days, but it sure is fun to watch you Libs squirm over what they're doing. "
Its fun to watch the "Libs" squirm, but poke a pointy stick into your belly, and all of a sudden you are Mister Righteous Indignance. Clearly, your presence here from the beginning was to "have some fun with the liberals". And now, after I turn you upside-down and watch you wriggling in your shell to right yourself again, you discover you've brought a cardboard knife to a gunfight.
I've been deliberately pushing all your predictable itty-bitty little buttons, and it makes you upset. How UNFAIR! Weren't we "Libs" supposed to be upset by YOUR comments? Now you know (as you sit in your squalid little frat-house) that I'm more sucessful than you'll ever be, and you wonder- why doesn't your faith in George bring you redemption and riches? You're a miserable young man, and you will grow into a miserable old man. Maybe you'll figure it out on your deathbed.
Self-worth cannot come from external sources. Do something worthwhile with your life. Only then will you be comfortable in your own skin. Hate jealousy, and anger will eat you from within until you are an empty shell.
-bob
Poke, Poke, poke. Wriggle little capsized turtle, wriggle. Did you know that shinebox is not a word? Were you trying to say "shoe-shine-box"? Are you getting a little flustered, pookie? Upset that YOU'RE the one on the defensive, when your intent was to have some "fun with the liberals" and get them riled up?
I'll sign off for today- I have a meeting at my Freemason's lodge, where we'll make decisions about the world-governement conspiracy that Donbrett wouldn't understand.
Did anyone else notice that Donbrett has stopped adamantly denying he's one person? Did I get you distracted Donbrett? Are things not going according to your plan? Don't you really really wish that someone would spirit me away to Guantanamo?
You already have much in your life to regret. Don't compound the problem. Think love, peace, and compassion.
-bob
Oh Sue, its GREAT fun! Please do join in! The cutest little nitwit neocon came here, trolling for trouble.
He managed to sidetrack us offtopic, on to Scooter and Valerie a couple of times, but we grabbed him, staked him out over an anthill, and poured honey over him. And now that his childish plan has gone awry, and he's being tweaked instead of doing the tweaking, he's making the the most adorable squeaky sounds!
We'd love for you to scan through the other posts, and then come back over here to the anthill, and maybe whack him with a stick, or something!
While we're pondering all this, lets lean back, put our feet up, and have a smoke, or a chocolate, or something. . .maybe show them a picture or two of a 'lib symp' or a neoCON or a 'semi-secularist terrorist' or [worst of all] what Guiliani says is our biggest enemy in this world: an ISLAMIC TERRORIST! That's guaranteed to make them pee their pants, stop dissembling, and scream "UNCLE SAM! Uncle Sam is a patriot!"
But I digress -- pass me that chocolate.
Sue,
Torture isn't so bad if it's done for the right reasons, to the right person [or the right country], under the right circumstances [especially under circumstances like knowing you can't be punished for it]. After awhile you really get the hang of it.
It will be an empty victory when we can finally say, "I told you so." Too bad our speech will be limited by that point!
He was the only guy I ever met who had the FULL version of the Oxford English Dictionary in a set of bookcases in his home.
During the Nixon years, I expressed the same sentiment that you just did, but he reassured me. I'll try to quote him as best as I can......
"Oh no, Bob, you misunderstand! They can't take away your rights! They can violate your rights, they can attempt to restrict your exercise of your rights, and they can punish and kill you for exercising them. But they cannot take those rights away from you, and you cannot give them up, or cede them to any other person, entity, or force!
They are granted to you by divinity if you so choose, by social contract forged before you were born if you do not believe in diety, but those rights are your birthright as a human being, and you cannot be denied them!
His name was Rick Shields, and he was a helluva guy. He believed a pretty good description of those rights was contained in the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. He was even familiar with how the wording of those documents changed from their first drafts through finished copies, and why.
He was a real conservative, one of the first of the Libertarians. He'd really have enjoyed the technology that makes these forums possible.
At any rate, Genine, chin up!!
-bob
Hey-- your username in acronym form is R&B... hope you like music!
It is time for all of us to spend an hour or two reading about historical
episodes when democracy fell. There have been some notable failures.
The fall of Weimer Germany in 1933 is often mentioned, but there have
been plenty of other democracies that fell to homegrown tyranny: Italy
in 1922, Spain in 1936, Brazil in 1964, Chile in 1973, Argentina in 1976.
Study these and then make up your own mind if we are living through
similar times or not today in the United States of America.
Some of the hallmarks are domestic spying, illegal detention and
legitimization of torture. If the president's claim of the power to wiretap
the telephone communications of Americans without warrants and to spy on
peaceful American citizens is not blocked now, he will have prevailed in
claiming that he can overrule our Bill of Rights by executive decree.
What seems to be a gradual self-coup is well underway here, such as when a
current government assumes extraordinary powers not allowed by the
legislation. An example is Alberto Fujimori in Peru, who was democratically
elected, but later took control of the legislative and judicial powers in 1992.
Like I said, make up your own mind.
(..and now that donbrett's mother seems to have revoked his internet privileges, I'll lay down the samurai sword, and put on a sweater...)
Well, I've got long hair, so when I go into the hot tub I tie it up in a John Belushi-style topknot. We got out of the tub last week, me wearing a black terry bathrobe and reading-glasses, when my wife insisted I take one of her swords (she collects), and let her take a photograph for Leon (the artist). When the mole-troll (thank you missy!) showed up, I decided it was time to move from a ghost icon to (what better than...) the samurai photo. It probably made me look like a complete psychopath, but it was pretty funny!
And I was thinking about how weird it was that all the icons, even the ones associated with past posts would change. Kind of a shame, because it would be nice to keep the scary-guy photo with the scary-guy posts. Ah well, maybe they'll implement your suggestion on the next upgrade.
More information is at Working-Assets at http://actforchange.workingassets.com/nd.html?r=MdNtfH71cvoz&n=8078659
You can sign up with them and send your Senators and Representatives an email in less than 5 minutes.
-bob
I have no affiliation with them, except for receiving their updates