Article from our paper this morningPosted by wendyn on 9/07/03 at 17:59 (129045)
Special for BG and Ed.
A non-American perspective. Just to balance things out a bit. And to prove that I too, can copy and paste.
September 7, 2003
Lessons from Sept. 11
'Cost of Empire': the high price of U.S. policies
By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor
Two years after the Sept. 11 suicide attacks on the United States, this earthshaking event remains clouded by mystery and misunderstanding.
Was al-Qaida behind the operation? Most likely, but not for certain. Secretary of State Colin Powell promised a white paper proving al-Qaida's guilt. It never came.
A tape that surfaced in late 2001 purporting to show Osama bin Laden gleefully chortling over the attacks, was seen by many in the Arab and Muslim world as a crude fake.
The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, not Afghanistan, by young men, mostly Saudis, who were educated and westernized.
Afghanistan's Taliban regime, until four months before 9/11 a recipient of U.S. aid, had nothing to do with the attacks, but did provide a base for al-Qaida, which numbered only 300 members. Most of the 'terrorists' in Afghanistan cited by the U.S. were actually independence fighters from neighbouring Central Asia. Taliban refused to hand bin Laden, a national hero of the 1980s anti-Soviet war, to the U.S. without proof of his guilt in 9/11, which the U.S. declined to provide.
This allowed far right neo-conservatives to seize control of U.S. national security policy. They immediately launched the invasion of Afghanistan and began preparing war against Iraq. There's now evidence both invasions, intended to seize major oil regions, were being planned long before 9/11.
President George Bush was widely regarded pre-9/11 as a hapless, rather comical figure enmeshed in the Enron scandal. The savage assaults transformed him into a saviour on a white horse, bathed in praise by the fawning U.S. media.
The Bush administration created a firestorm of jingoism, war fever, and national hysteria that quickly obscured its failure to protect the nation from an attack that Mideast observers, including this column, had predicted was coming.
Disparate bands of extremists
Bush declared a war on terrorism and dispatched U.S. armed forces to attack Muslim mischief-makers around the globe. This, however, was not a real war, but rather a police action against disparate bands of violent anti-American extremists determined to drive U.S. political and economic influence from their lands, and aid the struggle in Palestine.
Declaring 'war on terrorism' made no more sense than declaring war on evil.
Few Americans understand their nation became a modern imperial power after World War II, or that it had recreated in the Mideast a modern version of the British Empire - the American Raj. Most were simply unaware, or uncaring, that their governments had been overthrowing regimes, assassinating foreign leaders, promoting dictatorships and waging undeclared wars on foreign nations since the late 1940s.
Fewer understood the U.S. was de facto ruler of Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states, and overlord of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Washington kept highly repressive feudal or military dictatorships in power in all these nations that advanced Washington's strategic interests and brutally crushed all opponents. Most Americans were unaware that Israel was fighting Palestinians with U.S.-supplied arms, financed by U.S. taxpayers, or that in the eyes of most Mideasterners, and all extremists, Israel and the United States had become indistinguishable.
Osama bin Laden kept tirelessly repeating this theme, calling for revolution against the American Mideast Raj and its Arab vassal rulers. That, far more than truck bombs, was bin Laden's real threat to U.S. interests. Interestingly, bin Laden recently predicted he will shortly die a martyr.
The ghastly 9/11 attacks were what Imperial Britain called the 'cost of empire.' Angry, fanatical natives would strike back, using any means to punish the high-tech empire seeking to rule them.
Britain had Maxim guns; America, terrifying B-52s.
Bush's knee-jerk military response to essentially political problems, an historic blunder, has left the U.S. mired in deepening guerrilla wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, costing over $7 billion US monthly and growing numbers of American casualties.
Heavy bombing of Afghanistan prior to 9/11, what ever-wrongheaded neo-cons say should have been done, would not have prevented 9/11. Having alert security guards at Boston airport would have. The attacks of 9/11 might have been averted by proper coordination between FBI and CIA, and if Bush's astoundingly inept national security staff had done its job.
Instead, Attorney General John Ashcroft, today the self-appointed scourge of Muslim malefactors, actually cut anti-terrorism spending just before 9/11.
Nothing can excuse the sickening barbarity of the 9/11 attacks. But nothing should excuse America's pre-attack delusions of Olympian immunity from the ills of the outside world, some caused by U.S. policies.
Nor America's casual indifference to the death of 500,000 Iraqi children caused by a cruel U.S.-imposed embargo. Nor the bulldozing of Palestinian shanty towns, without realizing that at some point enraged recipients of U.S. geo-strategic discipline would bite back. Nor the risk of aircraft attacks.
This writer was aboard a hijacked Lufthansa A310 in 1993 when the air pirate warned the FBI he would crash the jumbo jet into New York's Wall Street.
All the flag-waving and heart-rending survivor interviews that will mark this week's 9/11 anniversary should not - but, of course, will - obscure the painful truth: the faux-macho Bush administration was asleep while on guard; it refuses to accept responsibility for its dereliction of duty; and continues to mislead Americans about the real causes of 9/11.
Re: Article from our paper this morningDr. Z on 9/07/03 at 18:11 (129047)
I do one thing that the arms that Israel received is paid for by that country. Now where do the bombs and weapons that the PLO come from. Alot of the PLO police force was trained in Philadelphia, USA.
If it wasn't for the USA the PLO would have been taken out a long time ago.
Re: Article from our paper this morningDorothy on 9/07/03 at 18:12 (129048)
Wendyn ~ I have moments when I think Canada is the last and only civilized country on earth. I listen to CBC, 'As It Happens', and not only the presentation of the news, but the recorded feedback from listeners is so refreshing - and leads me to think that Canada is the last and only civilized country on earth. Not without problems, I know that - but a country that actually has a very long canal in its capital city - is this true? - that is used as a transportation route in the winter when citizens ice skate to work on it. True? One of my lingering dreams in life is to once again ice skate - I love it a lot, just for fun - and that a country actually provides a wonderful means to do this is very attractive to me. It is a little hard to imagine that my feet and back will go along with the ice skating plan, but it is my plan and one day I will implement it!
Maintenant, il faut que je .... mmmm, j'oublie tout? Trop?! Mon dieu! Adieu.
Re: Article from our paper this morningBGCPed on 9/07/03 at 18:12 (129049)
Well Wendy that was interesting. Its nice to see you have America bashing liberal columnists over there also. I would hope that article was from the editorial page. Many of his 'facts' are nothing more than his opinion. It is interesting how he puts all of the problems into a neat little blame it all on GWB box.
His facts and timelines are remiss. Bin Laden, Sadam, Al Quida etc didnt just appear when GWB got elected. They were not some force mobilized to keep most Muslims living in rotten conditions and ruled by sociopaths.
If you recall under Clintons watch MANY acts were commited against US interests. Thanks for the cut-n-paste though I like to read all sides
Re: Article from our paper this morningBGCPed on 9/07/03 at 18:15 (129050)
Are you talking about Quebec? They are not nice they hate Canadians
Re: Article from our paper this morningDr. Z on 9/07/03 at 19:07 (129058)
Quebec is a beautiful City. They have ice skating ponds throughout the City. Great place to visit during the Christmas holiday's
Re: Article from our paper this morningwendyn on 9/07/03 at 19:50 (129063)
Dorothy - I've never been to Ottawa - so I can't answer that question. Sorry!!!
Re: Article from our paper this morningwendyn on 9/07/03 at 20:02 (129065)
BG - 'his facts are nothing more than his opinion.'
Good observation....dwell on that one when you have time.
My point remains the same......that there may actually be opinions that differ from those held by you and Dr Ed. And - (brace yourself for this one) - this difference of opinions on world views is not even all that uncommon.
In fact - if you look really really hard - you may find that there have been cases of this periodically throughout history. Even as far back as biblical times (yes - really!). You may find cases where people and countries have held radically different 'opinions' all deriving from one set of 'facts' and events.
My point remains that you should try to understand that people (or countries) with different views are not 'weenies' or inferior just because they have 'opinions' that are different from your own.
ps. I though your world knowledge was thorough enough to know that Quebec is a province - and not the capital of Canada.
pps. No - I'm not picking on BG. He and I are beer buddies from way back.
Re: Article from our paper this morningBGCPed on 9/07/03 at 20:58 (129069)
I know that I was just using a general region. I was there last winter. you have to admit that your prime minister JC is a bit too focused on that region. I also realize your point about facts v opinions. Facts form most peoples opinions. Facts are truths and a person can be wrong while believing an incorrect fact is a truth.
p.s. why did you edit your ost twice?
Re: Article from our paper this morningwendyn on 9/07/03 at 21:10 (129070)
For a change I actually fixed a typo.
I had 'I though' instead of 'I thought'. When I edited it - in a hurry - I changed it to 'I thougr'.....something like that anyway.
Can you tell that I'm avoiding homework again? I have two essays due and a final exam to study for.
I spend a lot more time on the board when I'm avoiding homework. (My real motive for trying to become involved in something on this board today is a distraction from what I am supposed to be doing)
I even find time to edit typos.
Re: Article from our paper this morningwendyn on 9/07/03 at 21:13 (129071)
ps. which also explains why I read the paper today. I haven't read the paper for a while...but I convinced myself I needed to read it front to back today.
You can imagine my delight when I came across that editorial. Of course - then I had to find the time to find the web copy so I could paste it here.
Now I really have to go....
Re: Article from our paper this morningBGCPed on 9/07/03 at 21:45 (129073)
Procrastination is sometimes a good thing
Re: Article from our paper this morningDorothy on 9/07/03 at 21:55 (129076)
Sometimes they ARE 'weenies' AND inferior as reflected in their opinions and world views that differ from ours. Not all opinions and world views are equal. Some are really quite awful. By the way, I think 'weenies' does not apply to those whose world view is hateful, angry, hegemonic.
Re: Article from our paper this morningmarie on 9/07/03 at 22:15 (129080)
Conservatives, or should I say neo-conservatives are far more experienced at bashing liberals. I appreciate the fact that Wendy was able to paste an article like this. Again I will say it is time to listen to each other. We will not be able to pull together as a country until we do. Don't criticize the article above unless you can honestly say that you have not participated in liberal bashing. Yes the language was of firm resolve but as Peter told me sometimes the truth is cold and blunt.
I am an American that is willing to stand up and say we have made mistakes...now how do we correct them? I also think Canada is a wonderful country...although I have had a very strong feeling about Niagra Falls...can't explain it just do.
Has anyone heard about a seceret Canadian/American military base in Canada formed after 9/11. i did find a couple of brief articles but no real deep info. There have been some theories that the power outage was set off by a secret operation on collecting electricity from space. I was able to find an American/Canadian base in the location that was reported on the news. Apparently there are many top seceret experiments in weaponry up there. I am still researching this news but if any of you all know about it I'd appreciate some guidance. Inquiring minds want to know. Did any of the Canadians feel and hear a loud movement underground at the time that the supposed experiment took place? Some folks did call into the radio station from Canada and it was verified that it did occur.
Re: Article from our paper this morningBGCPed on 9/07/03 at 23:02 (129087)
Marie how do you figure conservatives are more experienced at bashing liberals? If you dont count Rush, Hannity and FOX network, which doesnt bash liberals they just have non mainstream reporting and hosts. By mainstream I mean not the typical left leaning network and newspaper stuff. Remember the numbewr of major media people that voted for Clinton was in the 90%.
Fox and Rush are popular for a reason. You can also do a nexus on number of times the word conservative v liberal was used in a negative context in major media and it is a very unbalanced average with conservative being used in many many more negative contexts.
How many times do we hear about a 'vast right wing conspiracy'? I dont want to rehash this but the left does loads of bashing if you will and much of it is cloaked as nightly news
Re: Alliance and weapons testingwendyn on 9/07/03 at 23:13 (129088)
That's news to me Marie - but then again, I live under my rock most of the time. Lately I go long stretches with only snippets of news. I cruise CNN (for my American version) website once or twice a day, I hit the globe and mail and our local paper online for some hilights. On a really good day I also catch the 6:00 news and that's about it.
I did not feel anything just before the power outage...Canada is a massive country so those types of reports would have had to be localized to one area. I was in Kelowna BC (north of Washington State ).. (If they had a big earthquake in California, you wouldn't feel it in Boston).
Most of Canada is uninhabited, so large scale weapons testing could go on without attracting attention. I remember about 20 years ago that there was a lot of cruise missle testing north of here.
Re: Article from our paper this morningmarie on 9/07/03 at 23:25 (129091)
Most of the Republicans I know don't care for Rush and wish he'd go away. There isn't anything on the liberal side of things that compares to Rush or maybe I just have chosen not to listen to that kind of crap anymore...on either side and am truely unaware. Although liberals have become savvy in the last year providing some strong criticism in the name of humor. Remember it was you who referred to conservatism as the dark side. Just teasing ya. :D
Re: Alliance and weapons testingmarie on 9/07/03 at 23:36 (129095)
I believe the testing was said to have been done north of Detroit near the Niagra area. I can't think of the name of the city cause I'm tired. I wish I had listened closer to the report but it was a talk radio show out of Cincinnati that had a guest who is a scientist who has spent the last 30 years researching energy in the ionesphere. He claimed that the US and Canada had appoached him about doing a mobile experiment. He discouraged because he said their method could cause a catastrophic event. It seems that it was an experiment to garnish enrgy from the ionosphere so that we wouldn't be dependent on outside resources for energy. It sounded interesting but I never heard anything else about it.
Who knows? But i did find the US/Candian base.
Re: Article from our paper this morningBGCPed on 9/08/03 at 07:01 (129102)
Well you guys have pretty much all the major non-cable network anchors. Many of the talk shows like Rosie. 80% of the entertainers that get press like Penn, Garafalo, Sheen, Babs, Moore,. Many network shows that dont hide their agenda very well and promote left leaning ideas and low moral behavior.
MTV is a huge contributor of a media that has done very well at pushing kids/teens to accept and embrace their ideas. I am no prude by any means but when we have 13 y/o girls walking around in a mall with push up bras and a thong sticking out of their jeans thats wrong.
They have all of their shows that promote promiscuity, early sexual activity when they are too young. They promote homosexuality and bi-sexuality like it is a cool choice and trendy to experiment with.
They tried their rock to vote thing and went to concerts to register apathetic young voters. I would say liberals couldnt buy a promotional farm system with a billion a year.
So there are many many medias that are left promoters. The reason FOX is so popular is that many people have rejected the network stuff. The left gets mad and blames RUSH, FOX etc but people watch and listen for a reason.
The left doesnt offer a show that is stand alone one person becasue they already have many forums to promote their agenda AND they dont have that many people to pick from. You think the Al Gore Show would get in the top 20?
Re: Article from our paper this morningmarie on 9/08/03 at 09:08 (129108)
Liberals are not for promiscuity. We do however advocate prevention of STDs by using the corect type of birth control. There is a reason why STDs are so out of control in Africa....lack of education and acceptance of birth control.
Most liberals do accept people for who they are. Obviously promiscuous behavior occurs throughout our society no matter their gender preference or politcal preference. Right now there is a high ranking Republican/conservative in our community who literally got caught with his pants down. As a township trustee he has the power to distribute funds to poor folks in our town that need money for utilities and food. He used that power to gain sexual favors from poor desperate women with young children. Apparently it's been going on for years. One woman was bold enough to go to the police. A camera was set up in her home. When he arrived at her house to go over paperwork with her, he was filmed touching her inappropriately and making sexually explicit comments...none of which did she respond to or was invited by her. The police stepped in when they felt the woman had been through enough...when he stood up his pants were unzipped and they fell to his feet. I can't think of anything lower than someone who would use their power to gain sexual favors from destitute women with children. It's unexcusable.
It is up to parents to make correct decisions about what programs their children watch and where they go on the internet. It's terrible to go too Sears and J.C. Penney and find all the cloths you just described available in their back to school teen clothing sections. Sex sells and advertisers know it. O'Reily on the FOX Network interviewed Bambi and the filmaker about the KILL BAMBI paintball games. Where men pay a large some of money to track and shoot a naked woman in Nikes'running around in the woods. His program showed explicit footage of Bambi running around in the brush. More time was given to the film footage than to the actual interview....hmmm. He gave them alot of free publictiy and probably raised his ratings. Why did he do this segment...sex sells. It was a cheap trick to get viewers to watch this segment.
Once again GOOD CHOICE, BAD CHOICE, YOUR CHOICE. We must all take an active role in teaching our children to make good choices. I am often asked by the media 'What is your educational philosphy and what do you want children to learn while they are in your classroom?' My response is short and to the point. 'I want kids, students and my own children, to have a GOOD HEART. If I can plant even the smallest seed, I have done my job. If you have a good heart the rest will come naturally.'
best wishes, marie
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/08/03 at 09:50 (129112)
Most of the items which I cut and paste reflect my views in some way. Does this article reflect your views?
The 'far right neoconservatives' the article speaks of is an almost absurd statement. The very concept of a 'neo' conservative includes those who may not have been considered 'true' conservatives in the past but have migrated rightward. Those individuals are not as far to the right as some who call themselves classical conservatives.
No 'wronheaded' neoconservatives advocated 'heavy bombing' in Afghanistan prior to 9-11 as your writer states. That statement is just a LIE.
An even bigger LIE is the claim that the US embargo somehow caused the death of 500,000 Iraqi children. Saddam spent billions on weapons that could have been used to feed his own people. It is incredible that someone could purport such a perversion of the truth.
The accusation that it was the Bush administration that was caught 'asleep' again is absurd when it was 8 years of Clinton/Gore demolition of our military and intelligence apparatus that led to our state of inpreparedness.
Wendyn, If this represents your views, I am very dissapointed in you -- I thought you had more intelligence and common sense.
Re: Excerpts from article on local Republican demanding sex acts to be performed on him in exchange for public assistance.marie on 9/08/03 at 10:06 (129115)
Below you will find a little information about the sex scandal involving a Republican in our community. You should know that the excerpts below come from a conservative Republican Newspaper.
'Longtime Republican power broker Donald R. Clark, 66, was arrested Thursday on a Class D felony sexual battery charge after he allegedly demanded sexual favors from a woman seeking public assistance.'
Clark has been a powerful person in state, regional and local Republican politics. For about 10 years he served as Steuben County Republican chairman, then was elected in 1988 to lead the 4th Congressional District Republican Party, a post he held for about 10 years. As 4th District chairman, Clark served on the state committee. Clark also toyed with the idea of filling the vacancy in the Indiana House created by the 1989 death of Rep. Orville Moody,. The seat was filled by Dennis Kruse, Auburn, who still holds that office, which at the time was District 1 and is now District 51. He is a recipient of the Sagamore of the Wabash, the highest award that can be given to a Hoosier.'
'Court documents said the woman went to Clark in August, seeking public assistance. At that time, court documents said, the victim said Clark forced her to perform a sex act on him. The woman then told her story to police, who arranged to have video and audio taping equipment set up in her home.'
Re: Excerpts from article on local Republican demanding sex acts to be performed on him in exchange for public assistance.Sharon W on 9/08/03 at 10:15 (129116)
If her charges are true, that is absolutely disgusting. (What you quoted seems to imply that there may be video and audio tape evidence, but no details are provided...)
Re: Excerpts from article on local Republican demanding sex acts to be performed on him in exchange for public assistance.marie on 9/08/03 at 10:35 (129117)
On Thursday, according to court records, the woman called Clark and he arrived at her home. The two had a conversation about the woman's vouchers issued by the trustee's office.
Because his son is a good friend that is going through a difficult divorce I feel some guilt in posting but here is the story.
'Clark sat on a couch in the woman's home and she eventually joined him. Court records said Clark hugged and kissed the woman and touched her in several areas, including her hands, legs and back.
The woman said none of the contact was welcomed, court records said.
'At this point, (I) felt that the victim had been through enough and signaled trooper Bart Hensley to go downstairs,' master trooper Kevin Smith said in charging documents on file with Steuben Circuit Court. 'Trooper Hensley confronted Donald Ross Clark and identified himself as a law enforcement officer. (I) observed that as Donald Ross Clark stood up from the couch his pants fell to the floor.'
Re: Article from our paper this morningjohn h on 9/08/03 at 10:45 (129118)
Hey Marie: Rush did a very crediable job on NFL football this week. As you know he was selected among many applicants to join the NFL TV commentators. He had them all laughing.
Re: Excerpts from article on local Republican demanding sex acts to be performed on him in exchange for public assistance.Sharon W on 9/08/03 at 11:00 (129121)
Re: Excerpts from article on local Republican demanding sex acts to be performed on him in exchange for public assistance.marie on 9/08/03 at 11:18 (129123)
I'll echo that comment, ugh.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivemarie on 9/08/03 at 11:25 (129124)
She can present articles the same as you, Dr. Ed. I have no criticism of your views or the articles you post. They are yours. I don't agree with them but I would never insult your intellect. Do you listen to that Rush guy? He seems to have no problem insulting anyone whose views differ from theirs. I would love to see how he would fair in a real debate with either of the Clintons. They have approached him on this but he has refused to do it. Hmmmm....wonder why?
Re: Article from our paper this morningjohn h on 9/08/03 at 11:29 (129125)
In this day of satalites and information technology it would be almost impossible to have a secret base. When you have a base you have hundreds if not thousands of people involved and people are not very good at keeping secrets. I was involved in a supposed top secret base located deep in the jungle in northern Thailand. Fact is the North Vietnamese knew more about it than most Americans.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveBGCPed on 9/08/03 at 11:50 (129127)
I would like to see the source that claims he would not debate eiter of the Clintons. Rush is tongue and cheek, he teases and also makes sense on many things. He is very popular like it or not. If everybody could be hooked to a polygraph I would love to see the 3 of them debate. All the lip biting and feel your pain crap isnt believed by many. I dont recall anythin about them challenging Rush to a debate. I would love to see that
Re: Article from our paper this morningDorothy on 9/08/03 at 11:53 (129128)
Single, individual anecdotes - the infamous 'anecdotal information' - should not be used to support a broad argument, other than to supply color to an argument. Therefore, the story of your county trustee - disgusting and vile though it is - should not be used as support for a political party point of view, regardless of which political party. I recently read of a judge who was issuing judicial decisions based on 'favors' provided to him. His political party affiliation is irrelevant; corrupt, amoral human beings really do not affiliate with anything anyway, other than their own wants.
Availability of contraceptives is not the only obstacle to healthier sexual practices in Africa; cultural and traditional beliefs are much stronger factors - that is to say, barriers are widely viewed as completely unwanted and are simply not used. Maybe education will change these ideas over time, but this is an entrenched matter and very difficult to change. It is similar to the issue of the rate of unwanted pregnancies in this country where contraceptives are readily available.
Wasn't the 'Bambi' thing - as originally described and as originally really shocking and beyond the pale, even as we know the horrible pale to be - was actually a hoax? Maybe I am misremembering, but I recall that after all the initial outrage about it, it was revealed to be a hoax. No?
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivemarie on 9/08/03 at 12:15 (129130)
Well it was a long time ago and I don't have a source. My hubby use to love Rush and listened to him every day for years. So I have listened to his show. I did ask my husband why he never debated any of the folks he was ripping apart on his show. My hubby(who at that time was a Rush advocate) said that some politicians including the Clintons have asked to debate him but he has always declined. So I would have to ask my hubby more about this to give you an answer.
By the way he no longer likes Rush and has completely written him off. I live in a Republican dominated community and I don't know any of them that embrace Rush. Rush was the number one reason that I left the Republican party and am a registered Democrat. They wish he'd go away as he is hurting the cause. My hubby is still a conservative Republican. Like me he prefers to read or listen to the actual politician. I don't need anyone to do it for me.
best wishes marie
Re: Does this sound like.....BGCPed on 9/08/03 at 12:24 (129132)
Sounds familiar.....sure that guy wasnt the Governor of Arkansas?
My apologies to John
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivemarie on 9/08/03 at 12:32 (129133)
My hubby said he did remember us discussing the topic as to why he hadn't debated politicians he is opposed to but does not have a source to give you. You should know that my hubby still agrees with most of what Rush whines about on his show but does not like the manner in which he presents his ideology.
His comment was 'The record should speak for itself. Has he ever debated any politician that he was criticizing?' In fact it rare when a caller is allowed through that disagrees with him. My opinion and conclusion is this....I believe he does not want to give up control of his media presentation. Perhaps you can call him on his show and ask him why he doesn't engage in debates with real politicians.
Rush has shown up on some small talk shows in the last couple of years were an opposing view was presented to him...but not by a politician to the best of my knowledge.
Re: Does this sound like.....Sharon W on 9/08/03 at 12:36 (129134)
I'm afraid that kind of behavior knows no party lines, and it is disgusting wherever and whenever it takes place. As far as I'm concerned, there IS no excuse for it.
Re: Article from our paper this morningmarie on 9/08/03 at 12:44 (129136)
The point was made that liberals embrace promiscuity. As has been said before generalizing about a certain group is inappropriate. Specific individuals were mentioned in BGs statement. This example is not any different from using the Clintons to justify that liberals are all promiscuous.
I don't believe that Republicans are all bad because of one individual's actions. Just as I don't believe that all Democrats are bad because of one individuals actions. If examples are given of specific individuals then I will return with specific information about individuals. And that is my point.
We should do our best as a country to set aside all of the pety debates and criticism and listen to each others ideas for solutions. We are so bogged down with pety issues that it seems that nothing is getting done.
Re: Article from our paper this morningmarie on 9/08/03 at 12:48 (129138)
Oh I don't know if what I heard was true or if the guy was bogus. I just wondered if anyone else had heard about it. I did find and article about Canada and the US organizing a base that focused on terrorism. I wish I had saved it...maybe I can find it again.
Re: Article from our paper this morningmarie on 9/08/03 at 12:52 (129139)
I never said he wasn't funny or a good entertainer. I know about his stint as a NFL TV commentator. Is his radio show hurting so bad that he has to look for work? Not a criticism or a smart alec comment I was just wondering.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/08/03 at 13:40 (129145)
Anyone can present articles. The question then is if those articles represent the view of the presenter. The situation becomes more problematic when those article include untruths as in the one Wendyn presented.
PS Rush offered to debate Hillary Clinton on the health care 'reform' issue. She declined the offer.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/08/03 at 13:43 (129146)
Often, it was conservatives (eg. Michael Reagan) who left the Republican party as opposed to the other way around. I am a conservative who did not vote for Bush in the last election due to my differences with the Republicans.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivemarie on 9/08/03 at 13:50 (129147)
Yes I know how it may seem upsetting when untruths are represented. Been there.
And I do remember that you have stated that you did not vote for Bush.
Thank you for contributing the information about Hillary and healthcare reform. Do you know of any others? You don't need to give me a source I will trust your comment.
Re: Article from our paper this morningBGCPed on 9/08/03 at 14:25 (129153)
Marie I appreciate your point. I didnt imply all liberals embrace promiscuity. What I was alluding to was that the left has many mainstream outlets that do promote this kind of thing. I can l;ist many examples later. I need to get back to work and pay taxes
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/08/03 at 14:44 (129155)
I think many realize that Rush is an entertainer -- he really considers himself as such. He is a conservative but seems very loyal to mainstream Republicans. Despite his bombast, he generally is careful to be factually accurate.
If Wendyn, in her cut and paste, introduced the piece as repesentative of a specific viewpoint other than her own, the article would be viewed in a different perspective. As it stands, we can only assume that the article does represent her views. I certainly am anxious to hear from her as I would really like to know if she believes the content of the post.
Re: Article from our paper this morningmarie on 9/08/03 at 15:31 (129167)
OK you can go back to work....I have the day off. It's fair day. I teach in a farming community. The kids are all showing their pigs, chickens, rabbits, cows, horses etc....At the end of the week there will be a demolition derby. I used to judge and select the most artistic car. Maybe now that I am back in Ohio I can judge again. I'm cleaning house and planting bulbs and visiting the social board. Well I'm not cleaning to much...
Re: Article from our paper this morningDorothy on 9/08/03 at 15:42 (129171)
I am going to make one comment on your post because the topic always really arouses my ire. MTV. I think MTV is a major scourge of the universe. Not only has it RUINED music - does anyone else remember when music was music and not some sideline to obscene videos? - but I would submit to you that it has also significantly contributed to the fouling of America. Not followed trends, but created them - and not even to the lowest common denominator, but to a denominator so low that it didn't even exist until they created it to be the lowest possible. I truly despise MTV and it is one of my big beefs with cable tv. Just try to get any cable system without also having to contribute to MTV's coffers - it can't be done. Cable TV says: You VILL support MTV, sucker. I think when other countries talk about the decadence and immorality of America, a large part of what they are talking about is MTV because it is EVERYWHERE.
At risk of sounding 90 - and I am very far from old and very far from prudish and very far from naieve - but I will go so far as to say that I think MTV has ruined America's youth and has gone on to try to ruin the youth of every other country. Virtually no one criticises MTV in any serious medium, in any serious way.
I heard that Al Sharpton made critical statements over the weekend about rap and hip-hop music (I use the word begrudgingly) debasing black women. I am glad to hear criticism like that, but the fact is that it debases everyone. The women who perform in the acts, the videos, the stage shows should be vilified because they are collaborators in the degradation of all women. I am NO fan of Mr. Sharpton, but if anyone will listen to him on this subject, it's fine with me. All of our daughters have a really rough road these days and all caring men and women need to support every instance of decent attitudes and treatment of them. MTV has been the biggest promoter and purveyor of trashing women.
It is a sad day, although expected, but Warren Zevon died. I'm glad he was on the planet.
Re: Article from our paper this morningBGCPed on 9/08/03 at 16:04 (129174)
Dorothy, very good observation. I can name several incidents I have observed on MTV. I remember back when Clinton was running. They had a town meeting with some teens. They asked him if he believed in flag burning he said he wouldnt burn one but people should if they want be able to (good non answer)
Then a girl asked if he was a boxer short or briefs guy and he chuckled and told her briefs. This was many years ago and having a Presidential canidate telling a teanage girl on national tv what kind of underwear he likes is rather sorry. We didnt know about Lewinsky then either
They have gotten much worse since
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveBGCPed on 9/08/03 at 16:08 (129175)
I have heard that before. He actually has all day Fridays open to opposing views. He doesnt slam people with different views he actually lets them lay their point out. I dont worship the guy but he does make valid points many times
Re: Article from our paper this morningmarie on 9/08/03 at 17:03 (129183)
I remember well when MTV first arrived on the scene. Musicians have been making sfilm shorts of themselves performing a song or illustrating a song long before MTV arrived. When it first came on the scene 'music' was the primary focus. I have no clue what their focus is now. It has turned into shows and dramas based on sex and more sex. I haven't watched MTV in years. I do occasionally watch the MTV awards. What did you think of the Madonna, Britany, and Christina performance? I didn't watch the awards but did watch their performance later. A bit over the top for me.
I occasionally put on a cd in my classroom while the kids are working. They booed Crosby, Stills, and Nash, the Beatles, Moody Blues, CCR, Aretha Franklin. They said that's old peoples music. They have requested Pink Floyd and Ozzy. However they could not tell me the names of the musicians in Pink Floyd. Actually the lead guitarist of Pink Floyd, David Gilmore, plays with Ringo on his new CD. They booed that too....until I told them who was playing guitar. Kids today have fallen prey to media hype about what music is cool and what isn't. they have no clue or understanding of the music or musicians themselves. I do like many contemporary artists....but have to really screen their music before I let it play in my room.
The history and roots of rock-n-roll lie in the blues music that evolved from the plight of African Americans. Eric Clapton's song 'Motherless Children' was originally recorded by Blind Willie Johnson in the twenties (don't quote me on it. I'd have to find my old album in the basement to get the exact date).
Re: Article from our paper this morningDorothy on 9/08/03 at 17:27 (129186)
I didn't watch it. I assiduously avoid MTV and MTV products. You can always bet dollars to donuts that MTV will make sure that something on the continuum of risque to raunchy to obscene to worse happens - that's how they profit - and they are completely divorced from music and talent, other than merchandising of garbage talent.I like a number of contemporary groups and somewhat contemporary groups - I like The White Stripes and I sometimes like The Wallflowers and I like Moby and I like David Gray and some others; Dave Matthews Band is popular and pretty good, but not original. Other than a few, most are carbon copies of each other; their music sounds the same and derivative and they look and act the same. When we watch late-night TV (Conan O'Brien or Letterman- I do not like Jay Leno at all!)and wait for the band, my family and I say, 'Ok, how long before they jump? Ok, now how many jumps?' ETc. etc. It's all the same. And they're all copying Henry Rollins or others of his ilk who actually were original and had some original talent, whether you like it or not. I used to sing with jazz bands and with blues bands, with folk-rock groups and with country-bluegrass-traditional band. Thanks for the info. about music; I'm a bit of an afficianado already, both from personal performance and from knowledge.
Britney Spears can't sing - she's an action figure, but she has been promoted to young girls and young men. Madonna and Christina Aguilera - oh, give me a break. Christina A. and Mariah Carey have the same singing style and I find it completely unlistenable. My whole being screams, Stop It!! And it is a shame because they both have VOICES, terrific voices - but, talk about wasted talent. Neither one of them ever found a note they want to light on. I always wonder what kind of mothers they had and what kind of world we live in that takes great voices and perfectly great talent and tells it that to get ahead acting like ... well, I won't say it here...is the way to do it.
Re: Article from our paper this morningBGCPed on 9/08/03 at 18:38 (129193)
Not to pile on but your 100% right Dorothy. The Mexican place I eat at often has a tv and some employees watch all of the music/talent/gong show stuff. The one that is all kid singers is a hoot. They have 4 girls about 12 that all try to sound like scretching whitney houstons. They try to hold a long owl shriek like mariha carey.
9 yo white girls that have probably only seen a black person on tv but they try to sing like Aretha Franklin. Silly indeed Madonna is a graceless dancer. Her legs are made of lead so she just whips her head and hands around to make up for that.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivewendyn on 9/08/03 at 19:01 (129197)
Ed - you entirely miss my point. (Usually communication is one of my strong suits - evidently not this time)
Did you actually _read_ anything that I wrote - or did you just read the article,disagree, and flip off a knee-jerk response?
How do you feel about me posting articles that you so strongly disagree with?
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivewendyn on 9/08/03 at 19:19 (129200)
wendyn cut and pasted an article that was a different view point than the one that Ed likes to parade up and down this website simply because I knew it would bug him. The continous diatrabes about how he and his government are right, and how everybody else in the world was wrong - just got on my nerves. That - and I was looking for something to do.
Seriously though, I thought I'd my intent pretty clear. There are opinions out there that are vastly differently than those that are held by Ed and BG. May be a good idea to remove one's head from one's rear-end once in a while and take a good hard look at why some of those opinons exist (even if you don't agree with them)...and stop assuming that everyone else just must be wrong because you are believe that you are inherently correct.
And - regardless of my own political views (which I don't believe I've ever felt any need to bash around anyone with here) - I maintain the ability to listen to intelligent opinions that differ from my own...something I'm sure that Ed will not be disappointed in ;)
Re: Article from our paper this morningmarie on 9/08/03 at 19:27 (129201)
I didn't know you were a singer. I'd love to hear more about that part of your life. It never ceases to amaze me how talented and smart many of are posters are. I'm with you all the way about MTV.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivemarie on 9/08/03 at 19:33 (129202)
You made a gallent effort to break down the barrior and I aplaud you. I have no problem with you posting anything you want, so please do. ;)
I tried the same thing once myself.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/08/03 at 20:13 (129207)
I don't recall any diatribes here, just attempts to present a legitimate point of view and back it up with facts. I never presented information that stated 'everyone else in the world is wrong.' I have presented information and opinions in opposition to those who oppose freedom and those who opposed our efforts to defend freedom.
I can respect numerous points of view but not those who feel the need to tear down those who stand for freedom, liberty and the way of life that has led to prosperity for our citizens. Apparently you have decided to cast your lot with the enemies of our way of life -- too bad.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/08/03 at 20:17 (129209)
Do you really think that people should be able to post 'anything' they want? The US is responsible for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children?
If you think that anyone can post anything irrespective of how outrageous and non-factual, then don't get upset when there is a strong response.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/08/03 at 20:23 (129211)
Okay, what exactly is your point? This is not an exercise in clairvoyance. You posted an article claiming it to be a non-American opinion but all it was was an anti-US diatribe. I post information that backs up my statements, not simply to inflame passions. What else can we assume other than that article reflects your thinking unless you are willing to state otherwise?
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveBGCPed on 9/08/03 at 20:37 (129215)
I know Dr Ed , that old tired 500,000 children point makes anything the person says suspect. The UN helped impose the oil for food and drugs program. Meaning it was like a giant foodstamp/healthcare program for Iraq. They were supposed to sell a given amount of oil and use a certain % of profit to pay for food and drugs.
Like a good crime boss Saddam, with the help of the French, managed to not only divert much of the money but also skim about 1$ barrel vigorish for his own pocket. Saddam says should I feed 100 Iraqi children or buy 18kt toilet seats for one of my castles in Tikrit? Well we all know what he did. Does it suprise anyone that a rotten bastard like him who slaughtered and tortured over a million of his own people would give a rats ass about doing that?
This is all part of the blame America mentality that throws logic and truth out the window to push their agenda. Hey I just got an idea for the next Michael Moore Fictiomentary
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivewendyn on 9/08/03 at 20:49 (129217)
I get to cut and paste again (this time from my own post)
'My point remains the same......that there may actually be opinions that differ from those held by you and Dr Ed. And - (brace yourself for this one) - this difference of opinions on world views is not even all that uncommon.'
Did you know that there are people out there (who may be intelligent and well-educated and American and non-American) who actually disagree with some of the things you belive? What is the matter with those people!?
Some of those 'euro-weenies' may actually believe that they have some rational basis for the way they see the world.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveDorothy on 9/08/03 at 20:53 (129218)
I think calling him a 'crime boss' puts the exactly correct point to the situation.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/08/03 at 21:04 (129219)
We know about the various opinions - the media bombards us with those on a daily basis. We listen to the liberals and Euro-traitors ad nauseum to the point of disgust. We reitierate and promote the ones we beleive in. What is the purpose of reitierating concepts we find antithetical. You know what I believe in, what others on this board believe in. But what do you actually beleive?
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveDorothy on 9/08/03 at 21:32 (129222)
You hint at a rational basis for the Europeon viewpoint. Can you characterize it?
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivewendyn on 9/08/03 at 21:35 (129223)
Ed, the subject of discussion today is not my political views. I did not seriously expect to change your behavior or bring you to any great self-realization...but the whole 'euro-weenie' thing got my dander up. There are people out there who would find your political views as ridiculous as you found the ones I posted.
I find it impossible to write off entire countries or political groups simply because they hold views that may be different than my own. I do feel it's necessary to try to understand _why_ they hold those views, and where they're coming from..and I don't believe for a second that these differences are due to something as simplistic as a lack of common sense.
I don't expect that this whole exchange will open your mind at all...I realize that you believe that there is only one correct stand on anything (yours)...but maybe one day you will realize that there actually may valid reasons that some people hold opinions that are different than your own, and that it's okay.
I hope that in this exchange, you will resist your tendency to pigeon-hole everyone who disagrees with you as your enemy....
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivewendyn on 9/08/03 at 21:45 (129224)
Thanks Marie!! It has been a most interesting diversion from what I am supposed to be doing. But eventually I will have to throw in the towel and get back to my responsibilities. My husband thinks I am pounding away on the keyboard producing master piece essays. Little does he know....
Could be worse I suppose, I could be down here having a little cyber-affair on the side....instead I toss barbs with a foot doctor from Seattle.
Weird world we live in.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivePhil on 9/08/03 at 21:50 (129225)
Do you really mean that we can post anything we want? I tried to cut and paste Osama bin Laden's autobiography but the file size was too big. I thnk I will try the Communist Manifesto instead. Will you applaud me too?
What barriers, exactly, are being broken down? The barrier between truth and lies? The barrier between right and wrong? Do you mean we really don't need such barriers?
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/08/03 at 22:19 (129226)
You are taking liberties with statements that are simply not correct and palcing fast and loose with the facts.
I do not hand have never 'pigeon-hole everyone who disagrees with me as your enemy...' I engage in active debates with many friends who are liberals and have stated this on several occasions. Unlike yourself, I am anxious to be educated on a number of issues and can do so by a combination of reading and debate with others of unlike opinion -- now who is it that has the closed mind? When the stakes of an issue are high, the level of disagreement will go up -- for example, blaming the US for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.... Having strong convictions is not the same as having a closed mind. There are principles that my country stands for that I beleive in and defend dearly, principles that millions have died for. Such convictions and principles can be discussed as to purpose but compromise on such convictions only demonstrates a lack of character (as embodied by the Euro-weenies).
I do not write off entire countries or groups as you state. Again, you are distorting my opinions. I do take disagreement with the policies of a number of countries. There are some countries like North Korea and Syria which I can find little agreement with. That does not stop me from having friends and acquantances who are Syrian.
The 'Euro-weenie' term was coined by a comic political writer, O'Rourke, who has written a number of books in which he jokes about the politics of various countries, the US included. It seems like the one thing liberals cannot do is see the humor in situations or laugh at themselves. Most liberals have a cow if listening to Rush Limbaugh because they cannot distiguish between his bombast and discourse and even more so, they cannot tolerate any humorous criticism.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveMason M. on 9/09/03 at 00:32 (129239)
Reading this thread has been a fascinating late-night diversion. Thank you to all who participated, and especially to Wendyn for offering the editorial that obviously riled Ed Davis and BG, 'professionals' on this board. In fact, there were many truths in that editorial. Unfortunately, the good foot doctor and BG are not now and, since I first visited here at least, never have been honestly open to the kind of questioning that they expect others to satisfy (they continually use the boomerang effect and, yes, bashing) and to the points made or thoughts expressed by people who disagree with them - including people who care about the United States and freedom in the _world_ as much as these few individuals claim to.
Gentlemen, if you truly believed in freedom, you would not fail to at least question those policies of our administration that are obviously based on untruths and are destructive not only to others but, ultimately, to us as well; you would respect those who do question such policies rather than imply that they are traitors or pigeon-hole them outright as such; and you would engage in true discussion here rather than display sarcasm and the 'I'll see you outside in the alley, and bring your second' attitude or the laughably condescending and arrogant 'I'm disappointed in you' fallback, which on this board is fast becoming a cliche. Must we issue a fervent call for imagination from the 'professional' sector here?
My apologies to anyone else on this board who is offended by my post. Usually I try my utmost to be polite, but the absurdity of the apparently endless arrogance of a few led me to place politeness on the back burner for the moment.
Frankly, I have been finding that arrogance quite humorous for some time. I hope no one takes it too seriously. I am glad that Wendyn clearly doesn't and that Marie also sometimes challenges it. It does take guts to challenge know-it-alls, as we used to call them. There is a good deal of defensiveness in their postures, although they try to hide it with various forms of aggression, and I have noticed throughout history that that kind of stance often masks weakness.
May those in power or who aspire to power who have true great strength, far-seeing vision, and deep worldwide values - rather than tunnel vision and a simplistic 'we and our country are always right, end of true discussion, period' macho image to uphold - lead us.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 00:46 (129240)
Specifically state who you are calling arrogant. In what manner are the policies of our adminsitration based on untruths? Be specific.
Do you beleive that the US is responsible for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children as Wendyns' post purports? Despite several queries I cannot seem to get a straight answer from her on that. How about you? I will answer any question forthrightly and directly. Why does evasiveness seem to be a problem with the pinkos on this board?
Defensiveness? Some call it backbone. Some call it a willingness to stand on principles -- to honor the principles that countless numbers of American soldiers died for. They died to defend the principles that you and your ilk are trying to trash. They died so that all of us have the freedom to speak, even people like yourself who spit on the graves of those who gave thier lives for your freedom.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveMason M. on 9/09/03 at 01:38 (129241)
Note the ordering attitude in Ed Davis's post:
Note the political name-calling:
'Why does evasiveness seem to be a problem with the pinkos on this board?'
'...you and your ilk....'
(Perhaps you would consider specifically stating what you find 'pinko' in my post and why you find myself and my 'ilk' - those who question this administration's policies - 'pinko.' Also, would you consider specifically giving the definition, in detail, of 'pinko,' and specifically state how and where in the world that term would apply in the year 2003? I confess it makes me wonder if McCarthy has been reborn.)
Note the utter lack of honesty and purposeful misinterpretation:
'...even people like yourself who spit on the graves of those who gave thier [sic] lives for your freedom.' (I have never spit on anyone's grave, and I expect that I never will. Not even the grave of a French person!)
Am I refusing to answer your questions, Ed Davis? Yes. This is different from evasion. Your questions are not honest, they are founded on a form of bigotry and on aggression rather than on a true desire to listen to a response, and you yourself would not answer similar questions with sincerity, if at all.
Some of _your_ 'ilk' (and I merely borrow that term from you - I do not tend to use it) are beginning to truly question. Although this fact probably pains you, it gives me more hope and even more respect for people of different political persuasions, and I now go to bed feeling more peaceful than I have for some time. And so, in a roundabout way, I do thank you for your contribution in bringing me to this state.
Re: A perspectiveDavid J. on 9/09/03 at 05:06 (129243)
I have read the heelspurs.com message boards regularly for some time, mostly out of medical interest having had heel problems (now resolved partly thanks to this website) but I have not posted before. The perspective I feel I want to offer now is not a political one. It is about this particular social board and some - well, specifically one - of its contributors. I do not aim to offend anyone, I would simply like to say how it looks to an outsider. My concern in doing so is for the website and the people who come to it for help.
When I saw the post by Ed Davis that started this thread, the post that referred to the 'euro-weenies' I was appalled. I am American, but have lived in Europe for many years, and I found the remark very offensive. Here is an intelligent man, a good doctor judging by the knowledgeable, cogent, and helpful posts by him that I have read over the past year. How is it possible that such a person is capable of making such a remark? I do not understand it.
I've observed over my year of reading here that Ed Davis frequently makes belittling remarks to people who do not share his particular views. This saddens me because it is so destructive, and so inappropriate (for a doctor). This was most notable last spring in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, when in almost every post he wrote, he misinterpreted or even twisted the words of the few posters who were expressing views different to his. And often this seemed to be deliberate. It has also seemed to me that he makes the kinds of demands on people that he would not care to meet himself, and declares himself 'disappointed' in a poster when he or she declines to meet those demands - as if he had the right to so judge people.
As I said, I am writing this out of concern for this website. It is a good place to which people with heel pain come for help. It's a godsend to them. And Ed Davis is one of the most helpful - because knowledgeable - contributors to it. So my fervent wish is that he would confine himself to posting on the medically-focused message boards. I know that he enjoys political repartee, so he probably won't do that, but if he continues participating in such discussions on the social board, I hope that he will at least refrain from remarks that, as an intelligent person, he must realise are offensive and destructive.
When I first travelled to Europe many years ago, people who had been there before me warned me to expect a lot of anti-American feeling. I wonder if there was actually a sort of American inferiority complex at work at the time - you know, 'Europe has so much history, we have so little; Europe has all this wonderful culture, we are still making our culture' sort of thing. I think that probably did exist at the time. And I wonder now if that very sense of inferiority has metamorphosed into the belligerent, aggressive/defensive stance of those who pillory 'old Europe' and its 'euro-weenies- and 'euro-traitors'. Let me be clear: intelligent, thoughtful Europeans are not 'anti-American'. But most of them, while they respect patriotism, i.e. love of one's country, would make a distinction between it and nationalism, and would regard the kind of nationalism now current in the States as dangerous and boding ill for the future of humanity.
Thank you for listening.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivemarie on 9/09/03 at 06:27 (129244)
Actually it isn't legal to cut and paste anything without permission from the author or source. At one time I suggested that folks supply a link to the article and not paste the entire article. The most incredible thing about our country is FREEDOM. Unfortunately that word has been twisted into reading 'My way or the highway.' Phil you may be surprised to know that many here find all kinds of discussions offensive as we are a diverse group of individuals. If you provided a cut and paste job of BinLaden's life story on this board I have the FREEDOM NOT TO OPEN IT. The neoconservatives AT THIS BOARD ARE NOT THE BOSS OF ME.
best wishes to you,
P.S.: The only person who has the right to say don't do that is Scott as it is his board.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveBGCPed on 9/09/03 at 06:45 (129247)
Mason I knew it was a matter of time. In the name of diversity and tolerance please realize that there CAN be arrogance, condescention, know-it-allness and lack of tolerance for other views on the leftist side. Thanks for making it obvious and thanks for not letting me down
Re: A perspectiveBGCPed on 9/09/03 at 06:50 (129248)
When I first travelled to Europe many years ago, people who had been there before me warned me to expect a lot of anti-American feeling. I wonder if there was actually a sort of American inferiority complex at work at the time - you know, 'Europe has so much history, we have so little; Europe has all this wonderful culture, we are still making our culture' sort of thing. I think that probably did exist at the time. And I wonder now if that very sense of inferiority has metamorphosed into the belligerent, aggressive/defensive stance of those who pillory 'old Europe' and its 'euro-weenies- and 'euro-traitors'. Let me be clear: intelligent, thoughtful Europeans are not 'anti-American'. But most of them, while they respect patriotism, i.e. love of one's country, would make a distinction between it and nationalism, and would regard the kind of nationalism now current in the States as dangerous and boding ill for the future of humanity
WTH? This was a great 'first time port' until I got to the last paragraphj above.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 12:33 (129283)
It was about 11:30 PM last night when I answered your post, I was still at the office and downright disgusted with the fact that neither wendyn, who posted a vicious anti-US diatribe nor yourself can honestly answer the questions I had posed. You still won't.
Now you have called me a 'bigot.' Back that up! My 'insults' to you are jesting names such as 'pinko.' I do not call people bigots, murderers, theives -- those are the type of insults that are aimed at defaming one's character. That is one of the differences between you and me.
Yes, even I get tired of the name calling and evasion coming from you and wendyn. Yes, I DO answer all direct questions and have always done so.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveMason M. on 9/09/03 at 12:52 (129285)
Ed: I would say that 'pinko' is about as jesting as 'bigot.' (You didn't know that I was kidding?) You didn't really answer my question(s). But I don't mind. Let us just go about our day.
Re: A perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 13:04 (129286)
If you have read my prior posts, the 'Euro-weenie' label was coined by P.J. O'Rourke, a popular political humorist. It is something said in jest. If you take note, I use humorous 'insults' like the word 'pinko' but never levy accusations that would defame a posters character. Perhaps if you dig deep enough, you can find an instance when I lashed out in frustration -- after all conservatives have feelings too.
I cannot say the same for some of those whom you defend here on the board. Vicious, slanderous statements have been made with no apology by some. For example, Wendyn posting a piece that accuses the US of being responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. Read the above -- I have asked her at least 3 to 4 times to either agree or refute that. She will not. Mason calls me a 'bigot' but will not back that up.
I do expect, in the course of political debate, that posters be willing to back up what they say. You can call that 'belittling' if you wish but anyone involved in formal debate of any type would not.
One is either passionate about one's beleifs or not. A non-passionate individual will not stand up for what he/she believes in on this board but probably would not be passionate about his life's work such as medicine.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 13:38 (129291)
Phil's post was sort of tongue in cheek but I am not sure you are seeing his point which is not that different from the point I am making. When I cut and paste articles it is to present information that is consistent with my way of thinking or to reinforce a point --- we just don't cut and paste anything for the heck of it. If I cut and paste an article which I have disagreements with, I will say so. If it is a view that is opposite mine, I will say so. If someone cuts and pastes an article with minimal comment, all a reader can do is assume that that article represents the posters views. It is not a question of 'bosses,' it is simply one of frankness andd honesty -- let people know where you really stand, if you agree with what you have copied and pasted. Obviously, if you cut and paste an article with inflammatory comments, expect a strong response. What is so hard to understand about this concept?
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 13:39 (129292)
Which questions did I not answer?
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 14:42 (129302)
Good question. No response. I think that all we can ask for is that indidviduals who make statements be willing to back them up with some factual information.
Re: How liberals present their points of viewPhil on 9/09/03 at 15:09 (129306)
The answer to your query here is based on the fact that liberals argue based on emotion as opposed to fact. If one reads this string (and others) carefully, conservatives such as yourself continually ask for specific information, present specific information but the liberals will not respond with specifics or fact. When liberals realize they cannot support their case, they resort to telling conservatives they are mean spitited, bigots, arrogant etc. One only needs to read through this string to see that this is the case.
Re: How liberals present their points of viewmarie on 9/09/03 at 16:21 (129318)
Once again...in case you guys didn't get it the first time. You are not the boss of anyone here. This isn't a political debate that is going to actually change the world. This is a discussion. Now since you are pigeon holing me into one of those touchy feely people I am going to nicely send you some mello vibes...m-e-l-l-o v-i-b-e-s.
Now that you have calmed down (who did you say was the touchy feely group?) please think before you make another post blasting anyone or demanding that they have facts or anything else. Imagine my nicest, kindest voice and repeat after me:'I can use a search engine to look up my own facts because i am smart enough, friendly enough and gosh darn it I am a good person.'
Now take a deep breath through your mouth hold it, hold it, hold it and now exhale slowly through your nose.
Now go home tonight and have a drink of the beverage of your choice and know that we all come here to discuss whatever is on our minds. Some things we agree with and some we won't.
best wishes to you all, marie
Re: oops...marie on 9/09/03 at 16:22 (129319)
That's breath in through your nose and out your mouth.
Re: A perspectiveDavid J. on 9/09/03 at 16:41 (129321)
It doesn't really matter who coined the term 'euro-weenies'. You were the one who used it here. It is offensive. And 'pinko', whether or not you used it in jest, is not only an insulting slur, it is unpleasantly redolent of the McCarthy era, a painful time for those who lived through it, including myself.
I know you are passionate about your political beliefs, having carefully read your posts over the past year. I am also aware that you are passionately committed to being a good and helpful doctor. I believe that if you were to restrain yourself from expressing the former in the way that you frequently do, it would free your energies for the latter. You would be even more useful and more helpful here. And that would be best for this website. I have thought about this for a long time, and now I think that I should say it.
Why do I say it? Not because I have the right to tell you what you should or shouldn't do. I certainly don't. I say it because I am concerned for this community, and I now feel sure that your contributions to the political discussions discourage people who need help from posting here. I myself am a case in point. Your 'political posts' (I use this term for simplicity's sake) have been the main reason I have not posted here before now. I have found your political posts very unpleasant and off-putting, so I have not wished to come closer and have remained on the sidelines.
I have learned much from your posts about foot issues, and I respect your medical knowledge. I believe that if you were to confine yourself to being the good doctor that you are here, others besides myself who have perhaps also been wary of participating, might do so, to their benefit.
And that, as Forrest Gump would say, is all I have to say about that.
Re: Something we should all consider.marie on 9/09/03 at 16:55 (129324)
Wow David! I think we could all learn a lesson from what you wrote. There are some personalities who tend to want to control what is said and who saids it. The fact of the matter is that we are really all on one side...the side to keep this a safe community. I hope that everyone both left and right reads your post and simply reflect on the points you made.
I find nothing wrong with political discussion as long as we remember to remain civil.
I would really like to know what the word 'Pinko' means. I would ask Dr. Ed to give us a citation for that word but 'I am smart enough, friendly enough and gosh darn it good enough to look it up on a search engine myself.' ;)
I'll let ya know what I find.
Re: Something we should all consider.David J. on 9/09/03 at 17:11 (129327)
Thank you, Marie, for your response. I truly intended my post to be helpful, and I hope it will have that effect. This has certainly seemed to me to be, generally speaking, a safe community. But sometimes that safety is endangered, and I hate to see that. And of course I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with *civil* political discussion.
'Pink' is a lighter shade of red. Red = communist. Ergo,'pinko' is usually used in the defamatory sense, of liberals - the implication being that they are almost, if not quite, communists. I seem to remember - I am very old - that it was around a lot during the McCarthy days.
I shall be interested in the results of your own smart search. I have always thought your posts remarkably friendly and accepting and respectful towards views different from your own.
Re: Dr. Edmarie on 9/09/03 at 17:20 (129328)
I would politely disagree with you Dr. Ed. You use the word 'assume'. I don't know that assumption leads to anything positive.
Do you remember the time we got into the cut and paste war and I deliberately pasted a bunch of stuff? We had a discussion afterwards and as best as I can remember you told me that you made posts that included cut and pastes merely to get reactions from the folks that post here. Some of the insulting language in the articles IS offensive. Your excuse to me was that you didn't say it the article said it...well if I am to assume that this is your point of view then I am insulted and hurt by it. I am so far from perfect it's not even funny but I hope you know that I would never intentionally hurt or insult you. I hope that you can find it within your grasp to understand. Now when you say i have to do this or that to suit you....well that's kinda bossy. People can and do make all kinds of posts. Now when someone posts a joke or a recipe should I demand a citation....that's just silliness. I think we are capable of making a civil discussion without trying to be in control. And maybe that's the key word 'control'...some folks really need to be in control all the time and when they aren't they get stressed and angry and say things that just make all the important intelligent comments disappear because it's truely a turn off. =;
Now I have been here long enough to know that you and BG have rather mouthy humor and I try not to let it bug me...but I do find myself wadding through a bunch of garbage just to find the facts. Sometimes I see some truth but sometimes I see some real strange comments..that are reflective of General McArthur's time. :o It truely frightens me that you believe this stuff.....But ya know what? That's your choice and that's cool with me because I have no interest in controling anyone here. So with all due respect please give me and the others room too breath. You are a talented and giving man by nature I am sure that it will not be all that hard to do. OK? :)>-
Have you ever considered running for a political office? or getting more involved politically so you can actually pursue your passion?
Re: Dr. Edmarie on 9/09/03 at 17:27 (129332)
You said 'You can call that 'belittling' if you wish but anyone involved in formal debate of any type would not.' Oh my, we are not a formal political debate board. I read all of Scott's rules and didn't see a single one about formal debate. :-/
Re: Something we should all consider.marie on 9/09/03 at 17:51 (129333)
Well I haven't found the exact definition yet but I found this...seemed like an interesting point of view. So far there seems to be alot of folks who are proud to be PINKO...and Ed really please don't call me a PINKO again. That's not NICE....which is a rule in Scott's book. Thanks Ed, I have found a bunch of sites that would certainly tick you off but I am way too polite for that....I believe the author's name is at the bottom. I hope that is good enough for you. I don't care for the sarcastic attitude of the author, but found it interesting none the less.
Bill of No Rights
We, the sensible people of the United States of America, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblence of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of a debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the World is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
The author is State Representative Mitchell Kaye from Cobb County, Georgia.
Re: Something we should all consider.marie on 9/09/03 at 18:05 (129336)
Ok I found this
One entry found for pinko.
Main Entry: pinko
Inflected Form(s): plural pink·os also pink·oes
: a person who holds advanced liberal or moderately radical political or economic views
Oh my I think President Bush is one of these....didn't he just ask for $87,000, 000,000. in addition to what he already asked for? I don't know what you think but that is radically different from his original plan. I thought conservatives spent less money. How did this happen? How big is our deficit now? How much was it under Clinton? Did President Bush shush that old army general who said we were going to need more soldiers then what his plan called for right before the war? I believe I just heard Colin Powell say we can only expect about 10-20 thousand troops from other countries to help us.....do you think that will be enough? I am just using the news stations techniques of asking questions.
Re: How liberals present their points of viewBGCPed on 9/09/03 at 18:36 (129346)
Yep that Dr ED, gotta watch him He drives around Seattle in his white Bentley. He lights big cigars with $100 bills that he makes tons of by being a rich Dr that only works 2 days a week and golfs the rest.
I heard he wants children over 5 in welfare families to be forced into sweatshops. I heard he once gave a beggar the help wanted ads instead of some change. I say ban him and his kind from this board
Re: oops...BGCPed on 9/09/03 at 18:37 (129347)
dont forget the 3 count 123 breath in 123 hold it 123 breath out
Re: oops...marie on 9/09/03 at 19:54 (129359)
Oh yeah we definately need that.
Re: Dr. EdEd Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 19:58 (129360)
The thought running for political office has crossed my mind. Being interested in politics and being a politician can be very different things though. Politicians have to do a lot of things I could not do or would be uncomfortable with.
Some of the stuff I have cut and paste in the past was presented to get a response as it was strongly written, nevertheless I did not post content which I did not beleive in. Wendyn's article had some very strong anti-US allegations which I have a hard time concieving that she actually believes -- unfortunately she will not tell us so all we can do is assume that the post represents her views. I don't want to keep repeating this but the accusation that the US is responsible for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children is a horrendous accusation to be levelling. To do so unapolagetically, without corroboration or mitigation is wrong unless she truly believes that to be the case.
Re: How liberals present their points of viewmarie on 9/09/03 at 20:02 (129361)
Thanks for the laugh...now I have a new visual image of Dr. Ed.
I declare this the longest ever thread. We'll title it 'The Neverending Thread' by heelspurs.com.
Re: Something we should all consider.Ed Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 20:06 (129362)
Did you ever watch the sitcom, 'All in the Family?' Carol O'Connor plays the father, Archie Bunker, whom some may characterize as a redneck. His son-in-law is a liberal and lives in the same house with his daughter.
Archie regularly gets into political debates with his son-in-law whom he calls a pinko or the 'meathead.' Most people found it to be hilarious.
Perhaps you were not one of them.
Re: Dr. EdEd Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 20:11 (129363)
Debate does not have to be formal to play by a reasonable set of rules.
Re: Dr. Edmarie on 9/09/03 at 20:13 (129365)
Dr. Ed, I heard you the first time about the US and 50,000 Iraqi children.
I certainly don't have a problem with you or the responses you give.....they are yours. If you feel the article incorrect say so and move on. We don't have control over other people but we do have control over our reactions to other people. I find myself in this dilema all the time...I'm just as guilty about it as anyone else. If Wendy doesn't want to answer your quetion that's her choice so move on, we have better things we can ponder at these boards.
I think you should consider becoming active politically.....you have a passion and you don't necissarily have to run for office to be politically involved. It may be a nice outlet for you and you may find you like it. We have many doctors on various boards locally...if they can do it I am confident you could.
And remember, BE NICE! :)
Re: Something we should all consider.marie on 9/09/03 at 20:19 (129366)
Now this is just great....BG gave me a new visual image of you lighting cigars with 100.00 bills and now all I can see is Archie Bunker driving a Bentley and lighting cigars with 100.00 bills.
Well maybe if i can call you a name it will make me fell better. You know an eye for an eye. Hmmmmmmmmmm.......t.v. character. Yes I've got it now. No I might hurt your feelings. So first do I have your permission.
By the way Archie Bunker was my Dad's hero...of course my father made Archie look like a cupcake.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivewendyn on 9/09/03 at 20:20 (129369)
Ed, I apologize for the delay in my response…my work life and home life constantly get in the way of my internet life. I've tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to explain that my issue with you has nothing to do with your political views (or mine). I simply don't have the time to explain that again…take some time to go back and read the threads carefully (the beauty of having written conversations).
The post I copied was from a national newspaper…I came across it after I'd posted my original comments to you and I thought that since I had already posted something to you on how you deal with other people's opinions…it might be nice to post something for you to ponder. If you don't agree with what's in the article – that's okay….you weren't supposed to.
I realize that it's difficult for you to accept the fact that that my issue with you isn't deep seated in fundamental political differences. Bottom line – I don't know specifically what your political views are, and I simply don't care. I don't come here for political reasons – so I skip over 99.9% of anything that's posted here related to politics (I skip over 99.9% of the ESWT posts for the same reason). Yes – I have political debates and discussions with people…but not here. My issue here was related to comments and generalizations you've made that I perceived as derogatory and simplistic. I was far more interested in what I perceive as your inability to comprehend why anyone would have an opinion that is different from your own.
My mother and I have polar opposite views on things like education and politics. I still like her. My husband and I have fundamentally different views on things like homosexuality and capital punishment. I'm rather fond of him as well.
I don't think that political views define an entire person, and I believe that it's entirely possible to have great relationships and good discussions with people who see the world from a totally different perspective. I think it's entirely possible for a white-Catholic-vegetarian-prolife-conservative-monagomous-stay-at-home-mother to be best friends with a black-athiest-meat-eating-prochoice-liberal-promiscuous lesbian. Do you?
I realize you don't agree with much that I've said (if anything) and that's fine. I can still respect you in the morning (even if the feeling isn't mutual).
I really have to get back to all the things I was avoiding in the first place (I certainly came to the right place for an interesting diversion). I'm on the board once in a while - but just not very often. In the meantime..you always know where to find me by email....
Re: Dr. Edmarie on 9/09/03 at 20:21 (129370)
Yeah but first you would have to have an agreement on the rules by all parties....and ya know doc that ain't gonna happen here.
Excuse my language.
Re: Dr. EdEd Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 20:37 (129377)
Okay, call it courtesy instead of rules but also the basic rules of logic must apply. Fundamental logic is just that, fundamental -- no one has to gree to that.
Re: Dr. EdEd Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 20:44 (129378)
I would like to be more politically active but just don't have the time.
Besides, the Constitution Party has not done that well in elections ;).
Re: Something we should all consider.Ed Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 20:50 (129380)
I cannot forget the episode where Archie has his chance to get on TV for an editorial on airplane hijacking. He advocated passing out guns to all of the passengers. I guess he was ahead of his time when thinking about 9-11 ;)
PS I know a lot of rednecks who proudly call themselves rednecks. Some derogatory terms are 'soft' insults as they don't carry the weight of serious wrongdoing.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/09/03 at 21:02 (129381)
I appreciate what you are saying. I regularly read publications with viewpoints different than my own and discuss issues with people with differing viewpoints. I do not promote viewpoints which I disagree with though so the things I cut and paste are things I believe in, for the most part.
The one thing I expect is that if someone has a viewpoint to express that they can or are willing to state why that is their belief. I have seen numerous items in your cut and paste on a number of occasions as I am sure many have since the news media in the US is predominantly liberal. It is my impression that you simply did that post for shock value and to stir controversy. I still, after all the discussion, do not know exactly what you believe or not and how much of the material you presented, you actually believe.
Re: Dr. Edmarie on 9/09/03 at 21:10 (129382)
Ok Doctor Ed...I curse you with PF and or TTS for at least one week. As the pain gets to you all fundamental logic will flow out of your head and out the window. Chronic pain , neurontin, elavil, ultram, oral steroids, and so on sometimes limits our capacity to think logically. Mostly I am just here to listen and share. I am happy to discuss. Yikes, DEBATE on Neurontin...have you taken this stuff? The one good thing about getting to know you here on the board is that I have quit acting like a cat in the headlights when I am in the doctors office. Our conversations have helped me to humanize my Pod,(somehow Pod sounds a little alien like). I know I can stand up for myself when I need too...I'm not afraid anymore.
I love to hear others ideas about everything. Sometimes I think some folks are afraid to post anything with differing political views out of fear of being cornered into a debate that only leads to someone getting upset.
best wishes, marie
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveMax K on 9/10/03 at 00:27 (129397)
Ed, I think that there is a very specific point of disagreement in this thread between you and Wendyn: I think that she feels that you are intolerant of the DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS out there. Her focus is apparently not on THE CONTENT of that article (about the 500,000 Iraqi children), but rather, her focus seems to be to use that article as an example of DIVERSITY OF OPINION, contrasting strongly with your opinion as it does. I believe what she is saying is that there are many different opinions out there, and that nobody ought to get TOO SERIOUS about any particular viewpoint out of the spectrum, as this will tend diminish the importance of all other viewpoints (or discriminate against them, as it were). I believe she is saying that ALL OPINIONS ARE NEARLY EQUALLY RESPECTABLE, which is a kind of RELATIVISM OF OPINION. I think that's what you're dealing with here, and that's why she has no interest in debating the point about the 500,000 Iraqi children, or any other speficic points raised in the article.
Re: All in the FamilyDavid J. on 9/10/03 at 01:45 (129399)
'All in the Family' was based on the earlier UK sitcom 'Till Death Us Do Part'. It starred the wonderful Warren Mitchell playing the xenophobic, rabidly reactionary, nationalistic, stupid Alf Garnett. Anthony Booth was the liberally-inclined son. Dad regularly exploded at Son with epithets such as pinko and meathead and prat. Whenever his downtrodden wife, played by the wonderful, alas late, Dandy Nichols, chimed in, he bellowed 'silly moo'.
And yes, it was hilarious.
The reason it was hilarious was that THE JOKE WAS ON ALF. He was exposing himself as xenophobic, rabidly reactionary and stupid.
To pre-empt one of your thrown-down gauntlets, I hasten to say that I am not ascribing these qualities to you. I am explaining why derogatory terms like 'pinko' were funny in the context of those sitcoms. Be careful with the epithets you employ 'in jest'. They may say more about you than you'd want them to.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveDorothy on 9/10/03 at 02:42 (129402)
Very well said, Max K. Did you say you drive a cab? I love thinking of you out there thinking these great thoughts, thinking about Wagner, thinking about world affairs - I love a world with thinking cab drivers, as many are. My husband drove a cab in college for a year and learned a lot. He enjoyed it, for the most part. Keep yourself safe, ok?
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectiveBGCPed on 9/10/03 at 07:10 (129414)
Good point Max. I was thinking the same as Dorothy. But being a driver in New York its hard to imagine what your pissed off cabbie yell sounds like.
Re: All in the Familymarie on 9/10/03 at 07:11 (129415)
You're right on David. I think Mike often told Archie he was a 'Biget'
I did find a sight, while I was researching 'pinko', called Auntie Pinko. At this site one can ask her questions and she will answer. Maybe, Dr. Ed, you'd would like to enter into a real debate with a real Pinko. She had alot to say about health care.
I think Max also gave a very good statement about posting different points of views. Obviously we are never going to agree with everyone's posts. Max if you're reading this, thanks for the clarification.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivejohn h on 9/10/03 at 09:08 (129419)
I did not drive a cab but I was a chauffer in college for an elderly doctor and his wife. yes i had also had great thoughts Marie while driving. thinking about what big party I would be attending during the week.I also delivered mail where I had even greater thoughts. mostly about which dog would be after me in the next block.
Re: A "non-American perspective" or an anti-American perspectivejohn h on 9/10/03 at 09:20 (129421)
Certainly we have a wide range of opinions and I respect each persons right to those opinions and to express them freely. I try not to get upset when I disagree and have remained close to some people for some years now who differ with me on some issues. Julie, Nancy N, and Nancy S and I often differ on social issues but for my part we remain friends and still communicate. I think we agree much more on issues than we disagree. I posted recently that Dr. Phil reports that 90% of all disagreements in a marriage 'cannot' be resolved. The participants just have to adjust to the fact they disagree and neither will change. I think opinion in general are much the same. We rarely change our opinions because of someone elses post..
Some opinions I suggest do cross a line and should be answered in kind. For example there are still people who insist the Nazi's did not exterminate Jews. Some people do not let the facts get in the way of their opinion and adjust the facts to fit their opinion.
Re: Dr. Edjohn h on 9/10/03 at 10:28 (129432)
Only 3% of Doctors get any training in Pain Management while in medical school. Pain Management is becoming recognized more and more as a significant problem. I have read we have in excess of 50 million Americans in chronic pain which leads to anxiety,depression, and misery.I think the people on this board clearly understand this. On this Liberals and Conservatives must agree.
Re: All in the FamilyEd Davis, DPM on 9/10/03 at 13:22 (129452)
You are hilarious. You only are seeing half of the story. We laughed at BOTH the foibles of Archie's brand of 'conservatism' and Michael's brand of 'liberalism.'
Re: Dr. EdSharon W on 9/10/03 at 15:09 (129461)
It's unlikely you will see this but I was interested in your comments. I do NOT assume, when I post something, that people will think it reflects my views. For example, when I posted the Swaziland queens story with minimal comment -- that did NOT mean that I agree choosing multiple wives from among tens of thousands of bare breasted teenagers should be one of the privilleges of being a king! Nor did I agree with the editorial tone of the Reuters story I posted, which seemed (in a rather tonge-in-cheek way) to admire and envy the King for being able to get away with it...
I simply posted it, as a topic for possible discussion... something I often do.
Re: Dr. EdEd Davis, DPM on 9/10/03 at 15:26 (129464)
True but only Bill Clinton could 'feel your pain.'
Re: Dr. EdEd Davis, DPM on 9/10/03 at 15:31 (129465)
Mind-body dissociation. Disconnect your cerebral cortex from pain by doing nothing but thinking about politics;)
We have had some good debates on health care issues too -- the FDA, access to ESWT. Many cannot even get Neurontin because the silly FDA has not officially approved it for chronic pain....
Re: How liberals present their points of viewEd Davis, DPM on 9/10/03 at 15:34 (129468)
I had to trade the Bentley for a van because the trunk was not big enough to hold my Sonocur unit.
Re: A perspectiveEd Davis, DPM on 9/12/03 at 23:31 (129814)
This could be considered a medically focused board as I am here trying to offer a cure for the pathology of liberalism. ;)