Everybody's getting mixed up today on who I am! I'm starting to get a huuuge inferiority complex guyz!
What I wrote was a 'perception' statement, Bob. In my opin, he obscures the true meaning of every situation: like for instance, the URGENCY to pass Health care. have to, right now! Hunnh?? HIS urgency perhaps but not ours, and NOBODY called him on this blatant lie that it had to be done quickly, without reading the bills, you're gonna love it when you see, etc.
Sorry, T-Bear. Sometimes, as the ad says, you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't, and today, for me, has had a high cashew content. I really like what you have to say, and I know you work hard at saying it, even when I don't agree with you. I'm sad that you feel that I've missed you and confused you with Mike, which, in fact, I did. I can't claim that the company's bad, though, since I enjoy Mike as well, especially when I'm not busy growling at him.
If you spend any time reading Alfred Adler, you'd feel better about inferiority complexes. Adler thinks that they push us to compensate and overcompensate, and often are the source of some of our best and strongest personality traits. My observations tend to agree with his on the matter. He gave a lot more thought to power than sex, and we ignore his thinking at our peril, considering how much of the heavy lifting he's done for us already.
The first three attacks by Extremist Muslims weren't called a terrorist act.
That would probably depend on asking "by whom." Odds are that you would not be included in that list, would you be? And there would be a fair number of others who would certainly share and amplify that opinion. I suspect that there are people you wanted to be vocal in sharing and disseminating that opinion that did not do so, however, and that you may be indirectly sharing your upset about this.
I too get angry at people for things that they do not say as often as I get angry at people for things that they do say. I often feel silence can be a terrible betrayal. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent" is a phrase that has done the circuit in my brain more frequently than I would care to count. In this, as with many other things, I am dismayed at how self-righteous I can be at my worst and, perhaps, even at my best. I don't know there whether I am being honest there or rueful or self-punitive. Sometimes it difficult to tell.
But one of the things that it would seem to me to come with the freedom of speech would also be freedom of silence, right? As in, "You have a Right to Remain Silent. . . ." And sometimes it is better to avail yourself of that right, not only for legal reasons.
Nobody has to call the first three of anything "Terrorist attacks by Muslim Extremists," whether they are or aren't, do they? You certainly have the right to impute any motivations to that silence that you wish, and, as long as they are a public figure, you have a right to share that generally. If they were a private figure, there might be some liability attached, if I understand the law correctly. Being a journalist, you'd probably understand that better than I would.
The Fort Hood Captain Hassan was NEVER called a terrorist by the Administration. Cap and trade is smoke and mirrors to shift big oil money to green technology and Obama knows it, but that's not how he is spinning this trillion dollar boondoogle.
I don't have time top research this right now. My understanding is that Cap and Trade was originally a Republican proposal to allow free market elements into controls on emission standards. I have no particular opinion on the matter myself. It sounds sort of Republican Lite to me, though, a sort of funny sounding compromise.
He wanted education improvements, but his FIRST major act as Pres was to close the Washington DC voucher 98% success rate charter school.
I'd like to see some education improvements myself. I'm simply not certain what they would be. I have no idea what the history of this stuff is that you're speaking about here. I tend not to like the idea of taking apart public schools, though I'm certain that there are lots of things about them that need improvement, including the protections for teachers that even other teachers believe are bad teachers. How to address these things, I don't know, but I would like to begin some sort of discussion about this stuff if we could free it from the politics of left and right.
Let's Mirandize terrorists EVERY time...er...on second thought...SFX of sandels flip flopping
Let's Mirandize everybody when we arrest them. It may well help the occasional defendant, but it will certainly help every police department and prosecutor's office when it comes time to bring people to trial because it helps make sure that the protections are accorded and that convictions don't slip through because of careless or purposely deceptive beyond the pale police-work, as has occasionally happened in the past.
You act as though Mirandizing somebody is something that is helpful only to the defendant, when in fact it provides significant help to the state as well. Among other things, it reminds the police that it is not legal to beat or torture defendants, and that doing so, no matter how appealing previous administrations may have made it appear may actually be grounds for releasing the otherwise manifestly guilty defendant back into the population. And that laws in this country are supposed to apply to the police as well as everybody else.
I'll close Gitmo in the first year. ERRR....still open, Prez. New detainees actually have been sent there since election, too. ooopps
I'm infuriated at the man about this too.
Actually, I don't know that you're steamed about this, only that you find this inconsistent, which it is as well. As well as infuriating to me personally, is what I mean here.
His pre-election rhetoric, which was powerful, and altruistic, is a far cry from the issues he has championed since taking office. The two don't match.
I have to agree with you.
I don't know if the disjunction is as large as that between Bush's campaign promises and his praxis of governance, but it doesn't seem as bad to me. He seems to have tried to allow the Republicans a voice in the legislation and the policy decision, and the Republicans seem to have made a point of defining themselves by being against everything he's been for, even when, as in the case of the health care bill, the bill is essentially the same bill that they proposed as a reaction to Hillary's plan 15 or 20 years back. It's been an exercise in frustration.
"Not just the 'Party of No,' but The Party of H-ll No!'" was the phrase I heard used.