This man is a nuts

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

I think psychopath trumps religious fanatic in this guys' case! He obviously does not relate well to Reality....and DDs' 15 mins of fame are already done!

All these haters are actually very similar to each other in terms of what drives them. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a left-wing hater or a right-wing hater like DD. There is a psychological phenomenon that goes on with these people. The hate is actually a defense mechanism.

With haters from both sides, you have to remember that the hate has very little to do with the people they hate. Let's take DD for example. His hatred for Jews and Blacks has nothing to do with the behavior of those groups. DD is just a very unhappy person. He is pretty much a complete loser with too much time on his hands. I don't know that much about him personally, but in most of these cases the anger at the person or group is simply displaced anger. DD is obviously a very angry and unhappy person. Instead of looking at himself and figuring out why he is so angry and unhappy, he displaces his anger on Jews and Blacks. In his mind, all of his problmes are because of Jews and Blacks. He doesn't need to take responsibility for anything. His failure in business is because of the Jews.

It's not uncommon to see this type of displaced anger in our society. I see it from just as many people on the left as the right. When a person is basically obsessed with a person or group, and all the person does is bash that person or group, it is never about the person or group being bashed. It is about the person doing the bashing. You can actually tell quite a bit about the person even if you don't know any personal details about them. The main thing that is obvious is that the person is usually a very unhappy person and they usually have a lot of anger inside.

A happy, satisfied, and content person is not going to be obsessed with some person or group and be bashing the person or group every day. It's just not going to happen. A happy person has better things to do with their time.

[Rileyoriley]

A happy, satisfied, and content person is not going to be obsessed with some person or group and be bashing the person or group every day. It's just not going to happen. A happy person has better things to do with their time.[/quote]


So true!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

A happy, satisfied, and content person is not going to be obsessed with some person or group and be bashing the person or group every day. It's just not going to happen. A happy person has better things to do with their time.

... but you spend a lot of time bashing the left, Rupert... is there something you need to talk about? Sit here on the couch with me, tell me what's going on...

I'm sooooo teasing you, Rupert. I absolutely agree with you about some very poorly adjusted people displacing their anger onto other people. Mildred D Taylor put it well in "Roll of Thunder, Here My Cry" when one of her characters said something to the effect that people who have nothing still want to feel like they're better than someone else.

And Timm, from your mouth to God's ear about DD's 15 minutes being over, please! Yeesh.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

... but you spend a lot of time bashing the left, Rupert... is there something you need to talk about? Sit here on the couch with me, tell me what's going on...

I'm sooooo teasing you, Rupert. I absolutely agree with you about some very poorly adjusted people displacing their anger onto other people. Mildred D Taylor put it well in "Roll of Thunder, Here My Cry" when one of her characters said something to the effect that people who have nothing still want to feel like they're better than someone else.

And Timm, from your mouth to God's ear about DD's 15 minutes being over, please! Yeesh.

I know you were kidding, but in all seriousness I don't constantly bash anyone. As much as I despise Bin Laden, you don't see me obsessed with him and bashing him every day.

And with regard to politicians in this country, I think is totally ridiculous to bash one party. I think that most of the Democrtas in office are very similar to most of the Republicans in office. I don't think it makes a big difference whether Joe Biden is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee as compared to Orrin Hatch or whoever. They're both smart guys and their views are a lot more similar than different.

As I said in another post, the new House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes(D) wants to send 30,000 more troops to Iraq. It doesn't make a difference whether this guy is a Democrat or Republican. There is very little difference between the two parties. Most of these guys from both sides of the aisles are fairly capable individuals who are just trying to make a good decision. I have no idea if it would be a good idea to send 30,000 more troops or not. But if we do it and it doesn't work out, I wouldn't bash this guy. He's just trying to do what is best. Whether the decision turns out to be right or wrong, I wouldn't blame Reyes because I know he is a bright guy that is using his best judgement. That's all I can ask for.

I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled. They thought that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. They were a very bright team that used their best judgement. In hindsight, it looks like they made a bad decision. I'm not going to bash them for it though. If we had done nothing and then Saddam ended up with nuclear weapons in 10 years from now and he used them, we'd be asking why we didn't take him out when we could have back in 2001.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I know you were kidding, but in all seriousness I don't constantly bash anyone. As much as I despise Bin Laden, you don't see me obsessed with him and bashing him every day.

And with regard to politicians in this country, I think is totally ridiculous to bash one party. I think that most of the Democrtas in office are very similar to most of the Republicans in office. I don't think it makes a big difference whether Joe Biden is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee as compared to Orrin Hatch or whoever. They're both smart guys and their views are a lot more similar than different.

As I said in another post, the new House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes(D) wants to send 30,000 more troops to Iraq. It doesn't make a difference whether this guy is a Democrat or Republican. There is very little difference between the two parties. Most of these guys from both sides of the aisles are fairly capable individuals who are just trying to make a good decision. I have no idea if it would be a good idea to send 30,000 more troops or not. But if we do it and it doesn't work out, I wouldn't bash this guy. He's just trying to do what is best. Whether the decision turns out to be right or wrong, I wouldn't blame Reyes because I know he is a bright guy that is using his best judgement. That's all I can ask for.

I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled. They thought that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. They were a very bright team that used their best judgement. In hindsight, it looks like they made a bad decision. I'm not going to bash them for it though. If we had done nothing and then Saddam ended up with nuclear weapons in 10 years from now and he used them, we'd be asking why we didn't take him out when we could have back in 2001.

to whom did it appear this way??????????????????????????????????????

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

to whom did it appear this way??????????????????????????????????????

I don't know if you are kidding or not, but there are plenty of people in government in both parties who are very well respected on both sides of the aisle. For example, there are people in the Iraq Study Group such as Baker(R) and Warner(D) who are very well respected by both sides.

The new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is well respected on both sides of the aisle. He was just confrimed by a vote of 95-2.

You would have to say the same thing for both Cheney and Rumsfeld at the beginning of the Administration. Both of these guys had great reputations of being extremely sharp and capable guys. Cheney was the Secretary of Defense under Bush senior back in the 1980s. He was consdiered to have done an excellent job. I believe Rumsfeld was the Sec of Defense under Ford. I don't remember what the vote was in confirming Rumsfeld but I would guess that it was quite one-sided.

So to answer your question of according to who, I would say according to their peers on both sides of the aisle.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if you are kidding or not, but there are plenty of people in government in both parties who are very well respected on both sides of the aisle. For example, there are people in the Iraq Study Group such as Baker(R) and Warner(D) who are very well respected by both sides.

The new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is well respected on both sides of the aisle. He was just confrimed by a vote of 95-2.

You would have to say the same thing for both Cheney and Rumsfeld at the beginning of the Administration. Both of these guys had great reputations of being extremely sharp and capable guys. Cheney was the Secretary of Defense under Bush senior back in the 1980s. He was consdiered to have done an excellent job. I believe Rumsfeld was the Sec of Defense under Ford. I don't remember what the vote was in confirming Rumsfeld but I would guess that it was quite one-sided.

So to answer your question of according to who, I would say according to their peers on both sides of the aisle.

Uh, Rupert, we werent talking about right NOW. We were talking about 2001. This was the quote I replied to:

I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled.

Baker IS an extremely capable man. Unfortunately, Baker was not apart of this all star foreign policy team that you were referring too. He entered the picture after the damage had already been done and despite being urged, Bush never put him in in place of Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld had a reputation for being extremely smart and capable? Are you joking? He had a reputation for being with the Carlyle group for 20 years. LOL. Rumsfeld pissed off many from the minute he walked through the door of this administration.

Cheney? You mean the twice convicted Drunk driver? Or the guy that had FIVE draft deferments? He had an agenda and that he was capable only of war and NOT of diplomacy of any kind. Again, capable in the eyes of whom?

Colin Powell? He was a tremendous failure and completely unqualified for the job. His asset was his popularity within our country and that doesnt help too much in dealings abroad.

What is the common denominator? All these men had defense backgrounds. And this is what you call one of the finest foreign policy teams ever assembled? The agenda was war and that was all these guys were good for. and as it turns out, they werent very good at that.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Uh, Rupert, we werent talking about right NOW. We were talking about 2001. This was the quote I replied to:

I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled.

Baker IS an extremely capable man. Unfortunately, Baker was not apart of this all star foreign policy team that you were referring too. He entered the picture after the damage had already been done and despite being urged, Bush never put him in in place of Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld had a reputation for being extremely smart and capable? Are you joking? He had a reputation for being with the Carlyle group for 20 years. LOL. Rumsfeld pissed off many from the minute he walked through the door of this administration.

Cheney? You mean the twice convicted Drunk driver? Or the guy that had FIVE draft deferments? He had an agenda and that he was capable only of war and NOT of diplomacy of any kind. Again, capable in the eyes of whom?

Colin Powell? He was a tremendous failure and completely unqualified for the job. His asset was his popularity within our country and that doesnt help too much in dealings abroad.

What is the common denominator? All these men had defense backgrounds. And this is what you call one of the finest foreign policy teams ever assembled? The agenda was war and that was all these guys were good for. and as it turns out, they werent very good at that.

I was not implying that Baker is part of Bush's team. I was just giving him as an example of a person that is well respected to see if you would at least agree with that, which you do. Then I was saying that I think that Cheney and Rumsfeld were very well respected too. I guess we disagree on that. I think we disagree about Powell too. I think he was very well respected at the time. Powell was hardly a controversial figure. He was one of those guys that everyone liked. He was considered to have a done a great job as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the first Persian Gulf War. He was Stormin' Norman's boss.

By the way, what was the confirmation vote on Rumsfeld when Bush named him as sec of Defense? I don't think there was much opposition to him.

I don't know if you are aware how successful Rumsfeld has been in the private sector. He was brought in as CEO at a few different companies that were not doing well. He totally turned these companies around. He couldn't be any more successful. I believe he's worth well over $100 million. If you don't think he's an extremely bright guy, you are kidding yourself.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

it's obvious to me you don't understand politics

Most people think I know a little bit about politics. I do have a B.A. in Political Science from UCLA.

UCLA has consistently ranked in the top 25 universities in the country.

You say that I don't understand politics. What is it about politics that you think I don't understand?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Most people think I know a little bit about politics. I do have a B.A. in Political Science from UCLA.

UCLA has consistently ranked in the top 25 universities in the country.

1st round goes to Rupert! Way to bring it, Rup? Mera?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

i have a bs in poli sci from a school that shall remain nameless...along with a few other degrees...bfd...if u really have a bachelors of arts in poli sci from ucla it should be revoked and they should put u on a wall of shame...please tell me u had a double-major and the one u got most of the credits in was journalism or husbandry or something...i think dalikhali and others have said all i care to say (and if they haven't, it would be deleted anyways) besides... NUTRASWEET KILLS

If you have anything to say about politics then say it. It's easy to come on here and criticize other posters but that's pretty pointless if you don't have anything to add to the conversation. I disagree with people on this board all the time. But when I disagree with someone, I tell them that I disagree with them and then I explain why I disagree. I don't just say, "You're stupid or you are wrong" or whatever. What's the point of that?

By the way, it was obvious that you knew nothing about Rumsfeld. You came on here and inferred that he made his money in some type of sinister manner, when in fact he made practically all of his money at General Instuments and Gilead Sciences. Maybe you or Dalakhani can tell me what is wrong with being the CEO at General Instruments or Gilead Sciences.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

what u don't seem to grasp is a 90 something to 0 something vote doesn't mean support...it usually means compromise and leave the battle til another day

A vote of 95-2 obviously means that they don't have a problem with the person and it may very well mean that they like the person. There are plenty of times that the vote is very close and the person barely wins confirmation. Sometimes the person does not win confirmation. There have been plenty of people nominated over the years who did not end up being confirmed.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by merasmag

what u don't seem to grasp is a 90 something to 0 something vote doesn't mean support...it usually means compromise and leave the battle til another day

Gates won confirmation by a vote of 95-2. Are you saying that Gates does not have bi-partisan support? If Democrats don't like him, then why did Jimmy Carter hire him and have so much trust in him.

Here is a website that is very crtitical of Gates and even they say that the vote was very meaningful. Here is their quote:

"Not since 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell wowed Official Washington with his United Nations speech on Iraq’s WMD has there been such an awed consensus about any public figure as there has been for former CIA Director Gates, who is almost universally praised for his intelligence, experience and down-to-earth style."

The rest of the article is not so glowing, but they admit that the praise for Gates was bi-partisan. Here is the entire article:

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/113006.html

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

So much for equal treatment under the law...

Yeah, it would be lovely if if worked that way, but theories have a way of falling apart in reality. When you come down to it, communism is a perfectly nice idea in theory (everyone contributing to the comfort and survival of everyone else-- heck, it was first advocated in the Bible) but it's a complete mess in reality. 'Cause people likes to haves themselves some stuff, you know? Who doesn't like having stuff? I like having stuff.

[GenuineRisk]

Maybe Gandhi and Mother Teresa didn't like having stuff.

And maybe the naked guy on East 60th Street who poops on the sidewalk. He doesn't seem so into stuff. Including clothing and toilet paper.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

LOL

Well, there is communism and there is communism. Some forms of communism work. Some don't. You have the Amish and kibbutzes. You have the USSR and Cuba.

YIKES!!!
I find myself agreeing with Baba!
Actually, communism isn't a "deal" I buy into, but it works for some.
How about those Shakers?
They didn't know much about sex, but boy o boy could they make chairs!
And talk about dancing!!!
Jerry Spinger and Tucker Carlson would have been put to shame!

Dancing rules:
#1- Never look at your feet.
#2- Don't let your lips move to reveal that you're counting the beat.
#3- If you step on your partner's toes, don't stop dancin' to apologize. It's expected in the game.
#4- Shake, shake, shake...shake your bootie!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

LOL

Well, there is communism and there is communism. Some forms of communism work. Some don't. You have the Amish and kibbutzes. You have the USSR and Cuba.

Excellent point, and my 10th-grade World Cultures teacher, Mrs. Bej (Pennsylvania Teacher of the Year 1987), would not be pleased that I forgot about kibbutzes.

So, maybe communism works in small, close-knit communities?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

How do you tell the difference between a Shaker and an impotent epileptic?

Baba,
You got me there.
Does the answer have something to do with viagra or the law against "assault with a dead weapon"?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled. They thought that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. They were a very bright team that used their best judgement. In hindsight, it looks like they made a bad decision. I'm not going to bash them for it though. If we had done nothing and then Saddam ended up with nuclear weapons in 10 years from now and he used them, we'd be asking why we didn't take him out when we could have back in 2001.

Rupert, I have to respectfully disagree. I think Bush's foreign policy team was driven by idealogy, not any sort of grasp of how things work in the real world. They were bound and determined on this course from the moment they got into office, and in their attempt to force Western-style democracy upon the Middle East they completely destroyed the infrastructure of one of the few semi-secular nations there (yes, yes, tyrant I know-- have you checked into human rights and Saudi Arabia lately? The human rights argument wears thin in light of with whom we choose to ally ourselves) and provided fertile breeding ground for terrorists motivated by religious zealotry, which, as we know, is a bad, bad thing. (Two churches burned down here in the USA recently by Christian zealots, by the way. Churches. Zealotry always bad.) And what about the post-invasion plan, or rather, complete lack of one? That wasn't an honest mistake, that was plain bad governing. And our soldiers are paying for it with their lives.

And I respectfully disagree on Dems and Repubs being the same on domestic issues. I think they are very far apart there. (Which is not to say I don't think that both sides come across as utterly useless on many occasions.. )

But hey, at least the Dems are bringing back the five-day workweek (well, really more of a four-and-a-half day week), instead of the three-day one the last Congress enjoyed. Not much, but it's a start. If they ditch the month vacation in August, I'll really know they're serious. For a Congress that claimed to be so anti-French, they sure liked to vacation like them...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, I have to respectfully disagree. I think Bush's foreign policy team was driven by idealogy, not any sort of grasp of how things work in the real world. They were bound and determined on this course from the moment they got into office, and in their attempt to force Western-style democracy upon the Middle East they completely destroyed the infrastructure of one of the few semi-secular nations there (yes, yes, tyrant I know-- have you checked into human rights and Saudi Arabia lately? The human rights argument wears thin in light of with whom we choose to ally ourselves) and provided fertile breeding ground for terrorists motivated by religious zealotry, which, as we know, is a bad, bad thing. (Two churches burned down here in the USA recently by Christian zealots, by the way. Churches. Zealotry always bad.) And what about the post-invasion plan, or rather, complete lack of one? That wasn't an honest mistake, that was plain bad governing. And our soldiers are paying for it with their lives.

And I respectfully disagree on Dems and Repubs being the same on domestic issues. I think they are very far apart there. (Which is not to say I don't think that both sides come across as utterly useless on many occasions.. )

But hey, at least the Dems are bringing back the five-day workweek (well, really more of a four-and-a-half day week), instead of the three-day one the last Congress enjoyed. Not much, but it's a start. If they ditch the month vacation in August, I'll really know they're serious. For a Congress that claimed to be so anti-French, they sure liked to vacation like them...

I agree with you somewhat. I agree with you that they wanted to get rid of Saddam from Day 1, but they were hardly the only ones. As I've said before, Kerry had advocated invading Iraq and removing Saddam back in 1999. So it is quite possible that a Democratic President would have done the same thing.

With regard to domestic policy, I don't think the parties are all that different. I don't notice big changes domestically depending which party is in power.