posted May 18, 2006 07:29 PM            

At least that's a step in the right direction.

Were it not for the bungling, incompetent brain dead boob Jimmy Carter, there would have been no need for the US to intervene on the side of Saddam in the 1980's. There was no war between Iraq and Iran until Carter brought the insane maniac Ayatollah Kohmehnni to power in Iran. The same insane maniac who egged on the sacking of the US Embassy and held American diplomats hostage for more than 400 days.

posted May 18, 2006 07:45 PM            

quote:

---

even while he knew very well those weapons would be used by saddam to kill his own people...Petron

---

Perhaps I'll buy into your psychic skills Petron...if you can tell me which stock or stocks will be up at least 15% on the NASDAQ tomorrow.

Care to give it a whirl?

posted May 18, 2006 07:50 PM            

Ahhh... at least I am in good company!!! I can't think of anyone else I'd rather be attached to on this website LOL....

Okay.. time for more from the peanut gallery

posted May 18, 2006 08:00 PM              

i made a comment to Mirandee that had nothing to do with you. how simple would it have been to simply ignore the eugenics article if you didnt wish to read it? much of what you write may be construed as 'wasting space' but most people here are decent enough to allow you to post what you find relevant without resorting to insulting you.

you mentioned my name however in your post to Mirandee, in relation to 'emotional idealogies'...not knowing what you meant by that, and seeing it in reference to my name, i asked you a question about it.

that you found that question redundant or whatever, did not call for the personal attack full of repugnant insults that you launched on me. you could have ignored it, or simply stated your intention not to address me. instead you flew off into hell-bent rage full of personal slander, when what i asked had no bearing on you personally...attacking my response to Mirandee, with derogatory personal remarks, which again, had absolutely nothing to do with you.

so what are talking about here?

quote:

---

Then again, if we are passionate about what we believe in we are calling each other "hysterical, spewing hatred, full of venom and vitriol"... yet, one persons hysteria is another person's passion.

---

ok...these statements comprise your 'passionate belief'?...a response consisting of a personal attack, with no relation whatsoever to my original question, a simple question, regarding a statement you made with my name in it...

quote:

---

Why do you have to post such stupid questions? It's not my fault that you have diarrhea of the keyboard and have to post a dissertation on Eugenics (which of course was copied and then pasted because I daresay you are obviously NOT a molecular biologist are ya now? - but I could be wrong). Your blather was a result of one person that posted "some people shouldn't be allowed to breed".
And before some other duma$$ posts (But I found it to be informative) you stifle it because I am stating MY opinion.

---

why is it necessary to be so personally insulting simply because you don't like my post that has absolutely nothing to do with you? why not ignore it? where is the noble 'belief' that's being expressed with passion here, except that you despise me personally, apparently because you disagree with my point of view? if there is another reason, please tell me? i disagree with your point of view quite often, but i never feel compelled to slander you so insidiously.

yes, Pidaua, to me, this is "just a lot of vitriol spewed everywhere..."

quote:

---

...you don't have any original thought in your head.

You sit back, staring at your monitor, most likely grinning in glee because you posted some sentence that consisted of the use of 3 big words, somewhat used properly to make a point that is meaningless. You add one more flash of pseudo-enlightment with a phrase that consists of a few "blessings to all" and call it good. Ahhh.. isn't that right? Does it make you feel better as though you have just taken on the world and contributed something that future generations will adopt as their own personal code because you are just so damn profound LOL... No... I highly doubt that.

And that is precisely why you don't illicit more than a raised eyebrow, a prick of irritation (less than mosquito but more than a flea) and why your words mean nothing.

...People like you make me laugh because in reality, you don't make much of a difference in laws and regulations in this society or many others. You are just one person without much substance that feels she finally gets heard on a website full of people that subscribe to the same "ideaologies" the difference is salome, they have the intellect that you would beg for. Well, maybe you'll get lucky in the next life

Wow.... you really are stupid aren't ya?...

...Again... Salome... you just don't matter in the long run. As much as you want to compete with me, you can't. Now, I am truly laughing at you

...Go nip at someone else's heels - hopefully you get punted yet again...

...I'm just having fun at watching a turnip try to debate.

...When I do venture to read one of your threads, once in a great while I will post, but for the most part they usually consist of the same drivel as what you have been posting here.

...others will see it merely as a tough dialog pointed at someone that normally gets away with posting nitwit ideals. (Um, that would be you okay).

---

you consider responding to me in this way a representation of your passionate beliefs?

you said all this diatribe could have been avoided if i hadnt asked you a question about 'emotional idealogies'...but...

so what...so you didn't like my question...there was nothing, however, personally insulting in that question...in fact i have never personally insulted you...so why you feel the need to do so with such, yes, vitriolic, manic hatred, i don't understand. true debate doesn't necessitate such low aiming, venomous personal attacks, if you even consider our tete a tete as a debate at all. (what was it we were debating?)

in my opinion, it was rather an enraged fury at me personally because you disagree with my point of view. and again, why does that necessitate so much nasty personal slander? as you yourself say,

"It's okay for us to disgree. God how damn awful if we all agreed on our politics in this Country. Without dissention we only see one point and after awhile we turn into mindless sheep..."

i agree, so why respond with such personal derogatory remarks, simply because you dislike my point of view?

and then go on to say ~

"WE see people waiting for the person they hate to either post something that others won't like, get into a disagreement or even just post so that THEY can then come out and bash them repeatedly."

well that's exactly what you did Pidaua...i posted something to Mirandee that was unrelated to you in every possible way. when you posted a statement with my name in it, i asked you a simple question about the statement...and made no personal insults about you in doing so.

i said

"what would be an example of a 'non-emotional' ideology?"

ok, so that didnt please you, but why was it so necessary to launch into a diatribe full of personal insults, because of it?

because you disliked my post to Mirandee?

if it's so imperative to state your dislike of my post, you still could easliy do so without such personal nastiness.

again i'm saying this in response to your statement...

quote:

---

Then again, if we are passionate about what we believe in we are calling each other "hysterical, spewing hatred, full of venom and vitriol"... yet, one persons hysteria is another person's passion.

---

and

quote:

---

What is exactly hitting below the belt? Goading someone into an argument then getting upset when the person fights back?

---

i do not hit below the belt. to me, my question was valid, as you referenced me in your statement. just because you disliked my post to Mirandee. are you incapable of responding without personal attack and violent nastiness? perhaps you did not like the question, but i was not fighting, nor expecting to fight. of course if you wish to do that, it's perfectly within your rights...to post whatever you wish...whatever you deem relevant...and if that includes an ongoing diatribe full of manic personal insults then by all means, feel free.

however to then return and make the statements such as the ones i've quoted seems blatantly inaccurate...and constitutes "Goading someone into an argument". i'm not here however to fight. just to make some very relevant and valid points about so-called "passionate beliefs."

IQhunk is a gentle man who was pleased to see a ridiculous argument end that had no merit whatsoever. just because he too is appalled at the nasty way you 'debate'...you again resort to personal slander by referring to him as a roach and a coward.

you should be ashamed of yourself.

of course, i fully expect yet another explosion of violent references to my 'worthlessness' 'stupidity' and so on.

posted May 18, 2006 08:07 PM              

if people continue to feed the negative beast..it will grow into exactly what they thought it would become..
Another President will be in place by then..and then what..hehe

posted May 18, 2006 08:09 PM            

Now that you have your little cheerleaders I see you want to keep this going. I'm tired of dealing with you, so I'm done. I said all I had to say and if you want to keep rehashing the argument, have fun with yourself.

Oh yeah, and your wonderfully kind IQ lost it with me after one or two posts on another thread and called me an Angry B1tch. I would expect more from a gentleman and I have NEVER call another Knowflake a b1tch, bastar*d or anything racist. He also used specific aspects in my chart to try and put me in my place... A HUGE no-no in Astrology as you should know.

If you think he is the example of a kind human being that is in touch with all that is sacred then that is your choice and it does speak volumes about you.

posted May 18, 2006 08:18 PM              

quote:

---

Careful jwhop.. you will be called hysterical or manic...

Okay.. time for more from the peanut gallery...

---

and self-righteous commentary, about your noble and passionate expression of your 'noble beliefs', then i will respond.

this is the reason i quoted your responses to me. you edit out the vitriolic hatred you spew, then you go back and comment on your elevated perspective and superior method of 'debate'.

posted May 18, 2006 08:35 PM            

I think they're skating right on the edge in fantasy land....One more gentle nudge might do the trick. Your turn...or mine?

Good company, good cause and fire sign compatability

posted May 18, 2006 08:56 PM              

is that the only thing you can find to wail on about? if you'll re-read what he said, you'll see that he was not supporting what i said. he was applauding the end of a ridiculous dialogue between us, and stating his own imperfection, in that he would have exploded at your nasty style of communication. he's implicating himself....i have no need to berate him for something he confesses to have a problem with.

of course he's not perfect; none of us is. but you consistently goad people into fighting on a personal level and it isn't easy not to respond to you in kind. what you say hurts, especially when people expect to discuss ideas here, not personal hatred for others, as you do.

IQhunk was admitting his inability to respond to you in a civil way, as you do not converse in a civil way yourself.

posted May 18, 2006 10:57 PM              

Love and Respect for ALL. ...

posted May 19, 2006 02:54 AM              

Salome, I didn't have time today to read your whole article on Eugenics. I do know a little about Eugenics from what I have read and I find it interesting so thank you for posting that. I will read it when I have more time. I was only joking about the breeding thing. However, I did understand from your reply that this is something that you feel very strongly about and so I understand why you did not find my joke humorous. I apologize if I offended you.

Rainbow, Thank you for what you said. You know me better than anyone here so I appreciate what you said very much.

AG, I liked what you had to say about the name calling.

posted May 19, 2006 03:01 AM              

First, in one of your posts you mentioned about taking this article on Matthew Scarano and turning it into an issue about the Iraq war. I myself was wondering how this article about the death of a soldier in Fort Sill, OK had anything to do with the Iraq war. After I read what you said regarding that I went back to read the posts and discovered that Jwhop was the one who made it an issue having to do with the Iraq war. No surprise there. Then as usual most people were just replying to his accusations and off the wall remarks.

quote:

---

From Mirandee I get the feeling (or from her communication) that if one does not take the death of a Soldier who died, not in combat, but here, as indicative of how horrible the Army is and why we shouldn't be at war. She may not be trying to get that across.

---

No, I never even implied that this kid's death was indicative of how horrible the army is and the reason why we should not be at war. I can give you many reasons why we should never have gone into Iraq but the death of this kid is not one of them. I think I repeated in about three different posts that I did not post this article to make a point about the army or the war. When a soldier dies it is no less sad to me if he dies in an army bunk at Fort Sill than if he dies in Iraq or any place else in the world. It is not less sad because he didn't die on a battlefield. It is sad though that he did not get the medical attention he needed which WAS the responsibility of those in charge of him. So it was, in effect the responsibility of the army to carry through on their promise that he would receive the surgery he needed instead of being left in pain and given heavy doses of pain killers on a daily basis. I know that in the Bush administration it is common policy that NO ONE in authority is responsible or should be held responsible for ANYTHING. However, I don't buy that BS because we are all responsible for our actions and our sins of omissions or, as in this case, what we fail to do.

I said in my last post that the higher ups in authority in the army may not have even known these things were taking place at Fort Sill. That doesn't let them off the hook though. It's their responsibility to oversee their military bases. It's their job to know what takes place at their military bases. If it's not then whose responsibility is it? I mean we talk about troop support all the time, is it troop support if those in charge do not see to it that their soldiers are well taken care of?

Saying that does not mean that I think the military is all bad. But I don't think it is all good either. It would not be reality if it were. I stated that in another post too.

quote:

---

Why don't I bash on jwhop for posting his articles? Because 99% of the time they are also backed up with facts and they are published on other sites / papers.

---

Same thing with this article. This story was in the national newspapers and at other sites. Petron posted two other sources regarding this story and what happened to the soldiers at Fort Sill. One of those sources was The New York Times. I know the Times is hated by Bush supporters but it is still a reputable publication.

In fact most of us who post here at GU back up our articles with different sources when challenged and usually they are all dimissed as "liberal" sites or "liberal" publications. Just as Jwhop backs up his articles at other "conservative" sites. Mainly because at conservative sites you are not going to find articles that do not support the Republicans, Bush, the war or paint everything as rosy. You won't find anything that supports Bush or the war at most liberal sites but few liberal sites that I have seen are anti-military. Maybe some that I don't know about are anti-military.

posted May 19, 2006 03:03 AM              

quote:

---

Mirandee feels that I am of the mindset that anyone that show dissent against the Military or US is an obvious anti-American or hates the Military. I am sure I may have given that impression.

---

quote:

---

The story is inflammatory and automatically accuses the US Army of killing a private - MURDER. I am sure you believe strongly that the Military, the US Government, Bush and all of us Republicans want nothing more than to Kill anyone we can- yet there is no basis for that.

---

No, I do not believe that all Republicans or the U.S. Government in itself , or the military want nothing more than to kill anyone they can. Bush and Jwhop I am not sure about.

I did not know that you lived in a military community until you mentioned it on this thread, Pidaua but when you did mention it I could easily understand why you felt the need to defend the military. What you said about the title of this story is probably correct. It does give the impression of being anti-military to title it as being murder by the army. I did not get that impression when I read the story though. I feel that Pvt. Scarano died due to neglect, not murder. I also know that dying due to neglect or improper care probably happens more in hospitals than in the army. So your point is very valid about the implication of the title of this article.

Actually in reading this story I was at first very disappointed that when the activist wrote to John Kerry about Pvt. Scarano's situation he did not even get a reply. I was also disappointed that in contacting John McCain he was told that forms had to be filled out which he could not obtain. Then I thought that due to their aides who read the letters and take the phone calls it might not have ever been brought to their attention. So the jury is out on that.

I am not anti-military because I believe that our nation, like any other nation, needs the military for defense. As far as war itself goes, well, I believe as Jimmy Carter stated, sometimes war is a necessary evil but all war is evil because it is humankind killing humankind and we have to dehumanize people in order to kill them. Any act of dehumanization is evil.

Thomas Aquinas - priest, theologian and philosopher - in his writings coined the term "just war." He believed that war was immoral but at times there is no other choice and that would be considered a "just war." Some people don't believe there is such a thing as a "just war." I am not one of those people. I hate war, too many innocent men, women and children are killed in wars, too many young soldiers are put in horrible situations and too many die. War is all about death and destruction which is contrary to any religion or spirituality. The ones that don't die have to live with the horrors they have witnessed for the rest of their lives. For that reason war should always be the last recourse, when all else has failed. I believe that the last war that could have been considered a "just war" was WWII. If any human being could be pure evil it was Hitler. He was exterminating millions of people. That war saved humanity from a terrible fate. It was said to be the war that would end all wars. Unfortunately it wasn't.

Pidaua, I am certain, as you said, that if we were in the Senate we could debate for hours and go out and have a drink afterwards because I also admire you a great deal. If nothing else the Senate would get a lot more intense with us there. In fact if this whole group here at GU were in the Senate we might get a lot more accomplished but we might need referees.

Politics is an emotional topic as is religion. They both have everything to do with our values and principals which is who we are as persons.

That we are polarized here at GU is no surprise since the entire country and the entire world is polarized now. It is to the benefit of governments that the people are divided because we pose less of a threat to their agendas that way. In the U.S. it was never intended to be that way though. Our motto is supposed to be United We Stand.

posted May 19, 2006 11:33 AM              

i purchased that novel at gregory's suggestion also.

if you'd like to talk more in private about these subjects, you can email me at salome_nu@yahoo.com.

posted May 19, 2006 12:46 PM              

quote:

---

IQhunk was admitting his inability to respond to you in a civil way, as you do not converse in a civil way yourself

---

Hard to do isn't it, IQ? Only a saint would be able to respond to name calling and character assassination in a civil way. We can sometimes do that in better moments but the normal human emotional reaction to a personal attack is to become defensive. There is a saying and I think it comes from military strategy and/or sports that "the best defense is a good offense." That is why I think that much of the name calling, labeling and insults on these threads and in our society as a whole these days is really a defensive response to something that we perceive to be threatening to our way of thinking, our ideologies, our world view and as such, our person because all those thingss are related to our values and principals.

It might be a good idea to keep in mind that we DO create our own realities. For that reason our perceptions of the world and other people are based largely on our experiences in life, what part of the world we live in and even what part of the country we live in.

Mystic Gemini made a very good point when she mentioned that those who live in rural areas of the country and live in small communities have a totally different perspective on the world and world events than those that live in or near urban areas of the country. Mainly because they are less affected by government policy. Much of their world view is formed by their own experiences and what is going on in their own community. Same thing applies for those of us who live in and near urban areas. For instance, I live about 25 miles north of Detroit, Michigan. I grew up in a city right on the 8 Mile boundary line that Eminem made famous in his movie of that name. Nothing has changed from the time I was a kid growing up in Warren, MI than it was for Eminem's generation or to this day except that the southern part of Warren where he grew up has become a lot more run down due to poverty than it was when I was a kid. Frankly it was a tough area to grow up in. There a lot more diverse groups of people in urban areas of the country so I think for that reason we are a lot more tolerant of the different life styles of people and strangers.

I live in the suburbs of an industrial city where the majority of the population works for the auto industry or it's suppliers. For that reason those of us who live in industrial areas are more affected by government policies than those who live in rural areas or small towns. In fact it is the taxes of those who live and work in industrial and urban areas of the midwest and northeasten U.S. that subsidize much of the south and midwest. Those in urban areas of the U.S. pay the bulk of the taxes. In many ways rural or less populated areas of the states get a free ride in comparison. Kind of ironic that the so called Red states who voted predominantly for Bush would hate those of us in the Blue states who voted predominantly for Kerry when you consider that our taxes subsidize them.

Bush is not very popular in southeastern Michigan because his policies regarding offshoring have hurt a lot of people here. His radical divison of class groups and minorities, the haves and have nots, have hurt a lot of people in urban areas. Bush has waged an all out war on the working classe citizens of America. We in urban areas of the country see these things on a daily basis. So it is easy for those in rural areas of the countries to deny those things are happening due to Bush's policies because they don't see it happening in their communities. They are not affected by it. There are a lot of small towns in Michigan and the further north you go away from the Detroit area the worldview of people can change. I think it's like that in all states. In many ways those in rural areas and small communities are sheltered from the realites of life under the leadership of Bush. It makes denial of the truths we see everyday easy for them.

posted May 19, 2006 12:59 PM            

I have one thing to say about this quote:

"Mystic Gemini made a very good point when she mentioned that those who live in rural areas of the country and live in small communities have a totally different perspective on the world and world events than those that live in or near urban areas of the country. Mainly because they are less affected by government policy. "

People have to guard against lumping others into a catagory based on the "location" where we currently reside.

Some think that because I live in a rural community that I was raised here. I was raised in Laguna Hills, California and my father retired from Law Enforcement in Los Angelos. I lived in Portland, OR / Annapolis, MD (outside of Washington DC and worked in Downtown Baltimore). My biotech job had me frequently going to meetings with CEO's in Denver, Chicago, New York, New Jersey, Dallas, San Fran..etc..

I am not trying to list my accomplishments, just trying to make people aware that things are not always what they appear. I have been called a hick - yet in this hick town we have people that fled very corporate and high gov positions from the East Coast / West Coast and Internationally. One of my good friends gave up being an International Banker out of Chicago to live here and enjoy a different way of life - he's only 48.

Bisbee is different in that we attract the movers and shakers from all industries, yet the motto here is "be nice or leave".

We also have that huge Military Post as well as a large Border Patrol department in Douglas and Naco. Our stats almost break down to 50/50 Republican / Democrat and one of our Board of Supervisors for the County was a high powered Baltimore / San Fran Attorney that wanted to live in a rural community - he's a crack up.

LOL... my dad gives me a hard time for being in a rural community but he realizes that it fits my lifestyle. I like being able to wave at people when I pass them or go to the market and talk to the produce man who knows me by name (but when I lived in Annapolis I knew all the grocery peeps there too). My father retired from the Dept of Justice and moved to a community outside of Phoenix (suburb of the big city). People don't realize just how HUGE Phoenix is, with the crime to rival LA and NYC. But, I think they get this picture in their minds of the "old west".

We all do it and I find it fascinating to hear people's stories from where they came from and how they arrived to where they are now.