posted July 11, 2012 12:28 AM            

Normally I don't read comments that are not properly capitalized and/or punctuated.

Why not? Because I think it's inconsiderate to expect someone to decode unconventional writing. And if you are inconsiderate enough to expect me to try harder than usual to penetrate your chickenscratch searching for meaning, your ideas probably aren't worth digging for anyway.

Just my opinion and preference.

2) I made a statement about PNAC and requested that people take a look at the names.

Okee dokee that sounds T* TALITARIAN.

But Obama can b* mb any country he wants and rev up the p*lice state like crazy, and that is just a poor little spider caught in a web. You'll reserve judgement for him.

Your perspective just looks all skewed and out of proportion to me.

posted July 11, 2012 01:27 AM            

quote:

---

if you have spent much time in any other part of the world, you will see that it is transparent to others.

---

No verb tense agreement there.

Plus there are the bewildering assumptions that a) I don't know sh*t about how the world views US foreign policy, and b) I haven't already lived abroad.

People who make assumptions like that confuse me.

quote:

---

but our diehard american supremicist patriots are completely in agreement that we are the best and wisest protectors of the benighted peoples of less enlightened countries.

---

Ok, fine, but you're rambling.

quote:

---

the mention of carter underlines my point about obama...he didn't go along as he was told to, and he was out on his ear after 4 years.

---

WHO didn't go along, Carter or Obama? You mentioned two men and then switched to "he." I guess you mean Carter...but what exactly are you alluding to when you say, "He didn't go along as he was told to"?

quote:

---

or do you think it was just because he was "too liberal" and put solar panels on the roof?

---

Who, Carter? Do I think what was because of solar panels? The fact that Reagan won?

I really don't know whether or not Carter got voted out because of solar panels.

quote:

---

not blowing carter's horn, i never liked him much, but he is an example...

---

Saying he had solar panels might be construed as blowing his horn, then?

quote:

---

THAT is why i reserve judgement on obama.

---

Oh, I see. Carter having solar panels may have cost him the election. Therefore Obama can't just have "solar panels," ie liberality, and expect to be re-elected.

I guess you are going by the assumption that there are more conservatives than liberals, and that Carter was an actual liberal. Those are not my assumptions but we don't have forever to squabble over every little thing.

posted July 11, 2012 07:30 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 11, 2012 11:53 AM            

Faith, you're easily as guilty of making assumptions.

Obviously she means Carter as Obama wasn't out on his ear after 4 years. It's not as confusing as you're making it out. Kat's clearly saying that she believes Carter was ousted because he didn't adhere to what was expected of him.

quote:

---

Saying he had solar panels might be construed as blowing his horn, then?

---

You know her point is more about him bucking the system than it is about the solar panels, so you should be able to discern your answer.

quote:

---

Oh, I see. Carter having solar panels may have cost him the election. Therefore Obama can't just have "solar panels," ie liberality, and expect to be re-elected.

---

No. She's making a contrast between those Democrats that are realistic, and work within the framework they're forced to work with, and those that don't.

Whether falsely acting dumb or falsely acting smart, both are equally annoying.

posted July 11, 2012 12:39 PM            

And AG was nothing but respectful, taking a lot of time to not only read your links and watch your videos, but research them further and mull them over.

I am trying very hard to see where you have been as openminded as he has, or risen to the task of disproving his points with any factual evidence.

I appreciate AGs non emotional analysis of political goingson as much as I appreciate Kat's often cheeky, but gained through years of keeping her eyes and ears on the political and socioeconimic heartbeat point of view.

A discussion cannot be had in earnest when there is a viper in the room.

*edited to add*

posted July 11, 2012 01:28 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 11, 2012 01:47 PM            

you go on judging events and people on circumstantial evidence and i will talk to other people. there is a lot of gossip and rumour masquerading as fact these days and i don't believe in letting it stand.

this is not a personal vendetta against you. this forum has been the location for political and current event debates. of course it is ALWAYS handy to claim that whoever disagrees with you is a blathering idiot. but it doesn't make for much discussion does it?

and as i mentioned before, if you don't understand someone or don't like what they say, you are entitled to ignore altogether. but if you really did not understand what i said, instead of putting it down as gibberish, you might have asked. bizarre notion, perhaps, but that is how people come to understandings. or most of us anyway.

there are a multitude of styles here. a little flexibility keeps the conversation going.

for the record, the remark about solar panels was ironic. even though reagan felt the need to take them down as a symbolic rejection of any "threat" to the fossil fuel industries. i guess this is what randall means by "making a stand" even when pointless.

i for my part will try to take my own advice!

posted July 11, 2012 02:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Ami, You were just saying that she talks in gibberish, and now you're saying that you understood her perfectly on the Shylock thing. Kind of like how you claim confusion when I talk politics, but never have a problem understanding me otherwise. You're reminding me of Romney with your trying to have things both ways.

---

She talks in gibberish interspersed with nasty. If someone called you an ethic slur, you would see it, even within gibberish

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 11, 2012 03:38 PM            

Thank you for the criticism. Apparently, I SHOULD have understood her perfectly. I should like her style, I should spend my time following her convoluted, tangential, assumption-laden, condescending posts so I can play "fair" here.

Why? Because she's Kat. People like her. Therefore, she makes sense.

AG's refutation of my points, likewise, should have disabused me of all my silly notions about PNAC. I've been following this group for years, he is just learning about them now, but I should have deferred to his analyses because he is a Virgo moon who likes to give the appearance of dissecting links authoritatively while actually doing a cursory job and bluffing his way through it all.

Thus:

1) YES, AG! Elena Kagan was chosen as Supreme Court Justice for her leadership skills and being a Taurus. That had nothing to do with PNAC or her willingness to implement preventive detention (which is perfectly fine when done by caring democrats, too.)

2) Dennis Ross is a trustworthy Democrat, his stint at PNAC was a freak accident, and his serving Obama was entirely fair because Obama chose him. He's a Sagittarius, so he's copacetic.

3) Frederick Kagan also served to achieve the aims of peace under General Petraeus, because AG said so.

4) William Kristol's own approbation of Obama's foreign policy and use of the term "American Century" is not suggestive of anything. It was a waste of time for me to mention that.

And whatever else AG says is true. I know that when you folks rave about "independent thinking" what you really mean is, capitulate to our interpretations.

So there! You win!

Looking forward to reading more edifying chickenscratch from katatonic now.

The future looks bright for me here at GU2.

posted July 11, 2012 03:56 PM            

As with anything in which people have differing opinions, politics seems to really get under people's skin. Bullheaded fixitivity to one's own opinion is all he is calling you on from a neutral observer.

I don't see how that is being missed by you. I don't see how it is missed by anyone that doesn't offer the respect to actually HEAR another side of the story, but flippiantly disregard them because they don't agree with you.

You have no idea what anyone knows, nor do they know what you know.

Kat is tough, but she is actually fairminded. She herself has had to develop a thicker skin when dealing with people here, just like many have had to do when dealing with Jwhop. If you are new to this forum, take the time to go through some of the marvelously aggressive things he says. (and I do love him, too)Just remain respectful and don't allow the peanut gallery to mislead you.

And I appreciate what you are offering too, don't get me wrong. It's always good to educate yourself from all spectrums.

posted July 11, 2012 04:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
Thank you, Faith. I would never have taken the mental energy to do that kind of analysis, but I appreciate you breaking down this.

---

Thanks, Ami. I had insomnia and was in the mood to do something analytical.

posted July 11, 2012 04:25 PM            

quote:

---

Outright saying somebody is "bluffing their way through" something without offering any proof to your accusation is a good way to start down your path.

---

I already did. For instance, earlier on this thread, I called him out on quoting a misleading portion of the book review about Dennis Ross' book. AG was giving the impression that Ross is a "negotiator" when, by negotiation, Ross actually means, use ALL powers of persuasion including military force.

Would you like more instances? It IS tedious for me to construct a whole case, using quotes, when I feel that the truth is out there for anyone with a discerning eye to see, if they read the conversations we've had, mainly on this thread and the "Herman Cain is Brilliant" one. If they look at the links I gave and compare them to AG's overview, they might find that he is NOT, in fact, giving me a fair shot.

Really I DO NOT get AG. Amelia posted something about The End of America, and I replied to her post. AG shows up suggesting that I am presenting a poor case for an assertion I made on ANOTHER thread about Romney = Obama. Well...that just seemed a little crazy to me. I wasn't talking to AG, about AG, or even about the presidential elections on that thread!

But I did reply kindly.

And basically I was kindly disagreeing with him for the first several volleys of our argument, always wishing him well. Did HE reply with ANYTHING friendly like that?

No. He didn't.

And in the beginning I DID answer Kat's chickenscratch, noticing that she does have a brain, but after answering her innocent question "How anti-w*r are you?" with a moderate, truthful answer ("Pretty strongly, but I would look at it on a case by case basis") she replied with what I perceive as a big old condescending lecture.

And I got in trouble for not wanting to continue that conversation?

For ME to be accused of starting sh*t when I feel like I'm being chased around by this forum's tag-team duo of defensive, hyper-vigilant Obama lovers....

It's just WEIRD!!!!

quote:

---

You have no idea what anyone knows, nor do they know what you know.

---

Generalizations like this confound me. I don't make statements like that, and I don't get the "logic" of people who do.

Actually, I have read a few of the threads here, and I'm familiar with the general background of the regulars. I've also had political conversations with YTA before.

There is a whole thread called "Faith- I would love to hear your political views" and I did my best to introduce myself there. So it's not like I have been deliberately mysterious.

quote:

---

If you are new to this forum, take the time to go through some of the marvelously aggressive things he says.

---

I don't see what he has to do with me.

If Kat and AG are tired of dealing with him, they can take it up with him.

posted July 11, 2012 04:49 PM            

When did kat say she loved Obama? When did AG say that? Is this not an assumption of YOURS based on the fact that they disagree with your seeming distaste for Obama himself.

Hyper vigilant to me is more like using a * in every word that could be considered controversial so the government won't be tracking your posts. Am I wrong?

Condescending lecture, or sharing her opinion? Kat has "been around the block" so to speak. She herself is an admitted "off the grid" type of person, so painting her as an "Obama lover" is a bit off base.

I don't think you're the one starting any sh*t, btw. Not at all. I think you sharing your perceptions, opinions and information is helpful to this forum, and finally am enjoying the volley of ideas.

And by what I'm saying with "you have no idea what anyone knows, nor do they know what you know", I am giving both sides credit. You cannot possibly be privy to every piece of information (factual or otherwise)that pertains to the political structure of the world. Nor can anyone. You can read articles, books, songs, haikus for pete's sake, but not having lived it ones self guarantees you no real information about anything. Maybe that makes no sense to you, but think about all the dissent in the whole world and tell me what the true source of that is.

It's not religion. It's not politics. It's not power. It's miscommunication and misinformation. IMO

posted July 11, 2012 05:25 PM            

Branch out and talk to some other people, Faith.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 11, 2012 06:20 PM            

it takes at least two to argue. many people can discuss together, and there will usually be points of disagreement with subjects like these. that isn't such a bad thing. nor is it necessarily personal.

i am a chronically skeptical optimist. i deplore circumstantial evidence and propaganda, rife in our current world. take that as you will...

posted July 11, 2012 07:04 PM            

I was both fair and heavy-handed in my response, because what you say, Faith, is deserving of both kinds of responses. You aren't wrong about everything. It's just that you're not right about everything either. You sacrifice your point with things that don't make your point.

Look up Obama's relationship with torture, Petraeus, and Kristol. Find out the essential truths that you're missing, so that you can make your case better (if your case is warranted). Even on Ross your view was narrow and conspiratorial. You didn't call me on that. You said what you believed, which I don't think paints an accurate picture.

I was satisfied that our conversation was done when you admitted to being something of a conspiracy theorist (because there is something truthful and candid in that statement). I didn't think you fairly portrayed yourself with regard to understanding Kat, though, so I did comment there as well.

posted July 12, 2012 07:44 AM            

quote:

---

When did kat say she loved Obama? When did AG say that? Is this not an assumption of YOURS based on the fact that they disagree with your seeming distaste for Obama himself.

---

A thousand pardons. Neither said that they love Obama. My inability to state what I perceive as CLEAR FACTS about the President without being aggressively, verbosely challenged by his defenders led me to that theory. I don't know what is permissible to state here, about their attitude.

quote:

---

Hyper vigilant to me is more like using a * in every word that could be considered controversial so the government won't be tracking your posts. Am I wrong?

---

Hypervigilance in itself is not bad. The asterisks are just a quirky ritual of mine. I know they do no good but I feel a less obvious to the scanners.

I have found myself in an uncomfortable position because of how AG and Kat are being.....well call it whatever you want. I can't make a statement without eliciting a certain reaction that I have found unpleasant.

quote:

---

Condescending lecture, or sharing her opinion?

---

You be the judge. It's all on the "Herman Cain is Brilliant" thread.

posted July 12, 2012 07:53 AM            

quote:

---

Even on Ross your view was narrow and conspiratorial. You didn't call me on that. You said what you believed, which I don't think paints an accurate picture.

---

What is the accurate picture? In what way, exactly, is my view conspiratorial, and what are the elements conspiring in my view?

posted July 12, 2012 08:04 AM            

You're right, I never should have stooped to arguing with you.

I saw the red flags from the beginning and my request that you would stop lecturing me was really all I had to say.

posted July 12, 2012 08:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Kat,

You're right, I never should have stooped to arguing with you.

I saw the red flags from the beginning and my request that you would stop lecturing me was really all I had to say.

---

Yep, just move on, now. A lesson learned. This is how you get maturity and self confidence, not that I have mastered it, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is little steps like this that take you there, Faith

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 12, 2012 09:03 AM            

quote:

---

I can't make a statement without eliciting a certain reaction that I have found unpleasant.

---

posted July 12, 2012 09:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghanima81:
Hmm. Yup, you're in GU.

---

In my opinion, GU does not have to be a hot bed of nastiness. Why?

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted July 12, 2012 09:37 AM            

It is not nasty. If it is only nastiness you see in kat, then you have blinders on as well. You cannot only see it when ONE person does it. As I've said before, there have been YEARS of it coming from the other side towards liberals or the like. Take off the "holier than thou" hat for a minute and be realistic.

You yourself have been less than cordial in the past.

posted July 12, 2012 09:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghanima81:
Ami,

It is not nasty. If it is only nastiness you see in kat, then you have blinders on as well. You cannot only see it when ONE person does it. As I've said before, there have been YEARS of it coming from the other side towards liberals or the like. Take off the "holier than thou" hat for a minute and be realistic.

You yourself have been less than cordial in the past.

There is a lot of respect and good dialogue. Interesting information and shared ideas/viewpoints. When people show up and start stirring the pot, THAT'S when the good discussions can get nasty because they get off track and become about personal vendettas.

---

You just said "Welcome to GU" as if it was welcome to nastiness. I think we can bat around ideas and not people. Is there something wrong with that?

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal