White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

On the discussion of extremes, would the greatest purveyor of hyperbole merely be redundant?

 

[JUDE]

I apologize for not showing the proper amount of levity in this thread. I was merely having a bit of fun with El Kev and Mr. Jules. I was mistaken to think that this thread had become stagnant and that the arguments had been hashed/re-hashed to the point they could go no further. If you found my posting about Mr. Hefner, Mr. Flint or Mr. Francis to be offensive, I had no malice intended.

 

P.S. I will not apologize for the "Shaving Beaver" picture however, if you can't see the humor in that, you need to go outside for awhile and get some fresh air.

[EL the Famous]

yeah, not going to apologize for anything as i found none of it that offensive in comparison w/ the overall glut of posts found within this thread and others...but, because i dig miss y, i'll refrain and tell everybody else to go outside for awhile and get some fresh air.

 

also, kudos for reaching new levels of borderline insane paranoia/left-wing furor.

[sweetheart-mine]

yeah, not going to apologize for anything as i found none of it that offensive in comparison w/ the overall glut of posts found within this thread and others...but, because i dig miss y, i'll refrain and tell everybody else to go outside for awhile and get some fresh air.

 

also, kudos for reaching new levels of borderline insane paranoia/left-wing furor.

nice refraining! good for you. and have a great evening.

[EL the Famous]

nice refraining! good for you. and have a great evening.

 

but, because i dig miss y, i'll refrain from talking about beavers, pussies, tits and ass and tell everybody else to go outside for awhile and get some fresh air.

 

aside from that, i think comparing the past 8 years under the bush administration to nazi germany, inferring that bush intentionally let 9/11 happen and focusing on his 'evil' intentions in an effort to sway people from voting him/mccain versus more tangible examples of his ineptitude in matters like the overall economy and actual tactical decisions made in iraq happening today (versus constant rehashing of his poor decision of sending us in there in the first place)...to be no less crazy than someone believing in god.

 

it's that type of melodramatic posturing that drove me further to the center, once i realized anybody who is okay w/ being identified in anyway containing a direction, hyphen and wing is just as counterproductive as the other guy. i agree w/ 'chompsky' to a large extent...angry rambling about 'the evil empire' didn't get bush out of office the last time and, my guess is, it won't help keep mccain out of there either.

 

i'll have a GREAT evening...i'll look at myself in the mirror for a while and then sleep soundly. you too!

[bobbob1313]

aside from that, i think comparing the past 8 years under the bush administration to nazi germany, inferring that bush intentionally let 9/11 happen and focusing on his 'evil' intentions in an effort to sway people from voting him/mccain versus more tangible examples of his ineptitude in matters like the overall economy and actual tactical decisions made in iraq happening today (versus constant rehashing of his poor decision of sending us in there in the first place)...to be no less crazy than someone believing in god.

 

it's that type of melodramatic posturing that drove me further to the center, once i realized anybody who is okay w/ being identified in anyway containing a direction, hyphen and wing is just as counterproductive as the other guy. i agree w/ 'chompsky' to a large extent...angry rambling about 'the evil empire' didn't get bush out of office the last time and, my guess is, it won't help keep mccain out of there either.

 

i'll have a GREAT evening...i'll look at myself in the mirror for a while and then sleep soundly. you too!

 

Your my boy, blue!

[sweetheart-mine]

aside from that, i think comparing the past 8 years under the bush administration to nazi germany, inferring that bush intentionally let 9/11 happen and focusing on his 'evil' intentions in an effort to sway people from voting him/mccain versus more tangible examples of his ineptitude in matters like the overall economy and actual tactical decisions made in iraq happening today (versus constant rehashing of his poor decision of sending us in there in the first place)...to be no less crazy than someone believing in god.

 

it's that type of melodramatic posturing that drove me further to the center, once i realized anybody who is okay w/ being identified in anyway containing a direction, hyphen and wing is just as counterproductive as the other guy. i agree w/ 'chompsky' to a large extent...angry rambling about 'the evil empire' didn't get bush out of office the last time and, my guess is, it won't help keep mccain out of there either.

 

i'll have a GREAT evening...i'll look at myself in the mirror for a while and then sleep soundly. you too!

ok, so a few people made political inferences that you didn't like. and even fewer engaged in "melodramatic posturing" and "angry rambling" though i certainly grant you that a very small number did. a lot of people participated in this thread, with some including sources for their opinions and with most offering their opinions without ranting; so why do you choose to be one of the ranters you're complaining about? most of all, if you wanted to bomb this thread by being extremely offensive and ugly -- to most of the participants who weren't even guilty of what was bugging you -- well, i think it was a poor choice of a way to get your point across, and unfair to people who really didn't deserve that treatment. besides, it was childish. it was schoolyard stuff. and you were the one who surprised me. at least i won't be surprised again.

[EL the Famous]

ok, so a few people made political inferences that you didn't like. and even fewer engaged in "melodramatic posturing" and "angry rambling" though i certainly grant you that a very small number did. a lot of people participated in this thread, with some including sources for their opinions and with most offering their opinions without ranting; so why do you choose to be one of the ranters you're complaining about? most of all, if you wanted to bomb this thread by being extremely offensive and ugly -- to most of the participants who weren't even guilty of what was bugging you -- well, i think it was a poor choice of a way to get your point across, and unfair to people who really didn't deserve that treatment. besides, it was childish. it was schoolyard stuff. and you were the one who surprised me. at least i won't be surprised again.

 

here's my impression of this thread by the time we starting joking around:

 

 

dead. horse. beaten.

 

i was goofing around, not at all 'bombing this thread' to 'get a point across'. i said 'tits' 'ass' and made a play on words for an EXISTING thread that already had pussy in the title. lighten up. as far as everything else, we are obviously reading different threads. no blood, no foul...sorry you don't like surprises.

[Good Old Neon]

I'm going to honor the "knock it off" pledge I made with gogo, but, I just have to say the irony contained within the last few posts is killing me.

[EL the Famous]

I'm going to honor the "knock it off" pledge I made with gogo, but, I just have to say the irony contained within the last few posts is killing me.

 

i never made said pledge, but if you're equating me saying 'tits' 'ass' and 'pussy' w/ slagging off on people who believe in god...awesome! PM me!

[ms. yvon]

I trust you all have seen the PM button and know how to use it.

[EL the Famous]

this place is insane...ban me, please.

[viatroy]

seconded. please.

[sweetheart-mine]

ditto. so many other paths to take.

 

p.s. most surprises are delightful and i'm all for 'em!

[ikol]

I trust you all have seen the PM button and know how to use it.

 

Is that some sort of euphemism?

[MattZ]

aside from that, i think comparing the past 8 years under the bush administration to nazi germany, inferring that bush intentionally let 9/11 happen and focusing on his 'evil' intentions in an effort to sway people from voting him/mccain versus more tangible examples of his ineptitude in matters like the overall economy and actual tactical decisions made in iraq happening today (versus constant rehashing of his poor decision of sending us in there in the first place)...to be no less crazy than someone believing in god.

 

I hope this doesn't run afoul of ms y's request, and I don't think it does. I'd take issue with what you say above in bold. Yes, comparing Bush to Nazi germany is insane. Yes, inferring that Bush intentionally let 9/11 happen is insane. The discussion that I had with Chompsky was intended to be a level-headed and civil discussion (which I think it was) about whether Bush's gaffes in office resulted from ineptitude or "evil." I never meant evil in the Hitler sense, and I never suggested as such. The discussion was a sidebar to the initial discussion on mirror gazing and was never intended to sway anyone anywhere. So I disagree with you.

 

I think it is clear from my back and forth with Chompsky that I referred several times to hubris, and that when someone acts with complete disregard to other opinions, or is too quick to accept intelligence that favors his position, and rejects intelligence that doesn't with the same speed, is a real problem. And that problem stems from a situation where you have a leader that has made up his mind what the ends should be so that he can invent the means. I think that can be described as evil. It can certainly be debated on a message board. Frankly, I think that's an interesting topic.

 

No one in this thread can/will disagree that the gaffes of this Administration are many. Discussing whether those gaffes were a result of incompetence or otherwise (again, Bush achieved everything he set out to do), is a fair discussion in a thread about this Administration.

 

I agree that the horse was beaten dead which is why I toasted Chompsky and moved on. I am not sure why I am explaining myself to you. I certainly don't need to. But I do think the discussion I tried to have with Chompsky is an interesting one. And I would have appreciated your substantive input (and the substantive input of others) as opposed to broad brush strokes about how this thread is really something and the usual snarkiness that results around here when people want to post but would rather not engage (their brains or others).

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

I hope this doesn't run afoul of ms y's request, and I don't think it does. I'd take issue with what you say above in bold. Yes, comparing Bush to Nazi germany is insane. Yes, inferring that Bush intentionally let 9/11 happen is insane. The discussion that I had with Chompsky was intended to be a level-headed and civil discussion (which I think it was) about whether Bush's gaffes in office resulted from ineptitude or "evil." I never meant evil in the Hitler sense, and I never suggested as such. The discussion was a sidebar to the initial discussion on mirror gazing and was never intended to sway anyone anywhere. So I disagree with you.

 

I think it is clear from my back and forth with Chompsky that I referred several times to hubris, and that when someone acts with complete disregard to other opinions, or is too quick to accept intelligence that favors his position, and rejects intelligence that doesn't with the same speed, is a real problem. And that problem stems from a situation where you have a leader that has made up his mind what the ends should be so that he can invent the means. I think that can be described as evil. It can certainly be debated on a message board. Frankly, I think that's an interesting topic.

 

No one in this thread can/will disagree that the gaffes of this Administration are many. Discussing whether those gaffes were a result of incompetence or otherwise (again, Bush achieved everything he set out to do), is a fair discussion in a thread about this Administration.

 

I agree that the horse was beaten dead which is why I toasted Chompsky and moved on. I am not sure why I am explaining myself to you. I certainly don't need to. But I do think the discussion I tried to have with Chompsky is an interesting one. And I would have appreciated your substantive input (and the substantive input of others) as opposed to broad brush strokes about how this thread is really something and the usual snarkiness that results around here when people want to post but would rather not engage (their brains or others).

 

Well level-headed and well written. As the person who made the mirror comment, and repeated the Hitler parallel, I'll have to disagree about the insanity of it, but respect your right to view it that way.

 

I also agree there was some fascinating, substantive discussion that ensued, which was also my goal.

 

As one who, upon opposing Bush's actions at the time, I was attacked with all sorts of vindiction and vitriol. If you didn't blindly support him -- without question or debate -- you were unAmerican. Anyone whose eyes were open from 2002 to the present knows this was NOT the exception, but the rule. Since then one candidate has won his party's nomination, in part because of his opposition to the war. So times have changed ... some.

 

Bush and his administration pushed us into a war under false pretenses, ignoring of staff, doctoring and selective use of security data; there is a proof of a track record of these actions. In the months and years ensuing, the administration condoned and sought to codify torture that was against all international tenets.

 

I think there is definitely a case that this administration displayed evil intentions? More than 100,000 innocent Iraqi dead -- the war was supposed to liberate the country; it instead has made them much worse off. The war was supposed to be an answer to al Qaeda and the War On Terror; it instead opened the country in the post invasion days to allow terrorists to take charge of large sections of the country.

 

His administration demonstrated a systematic abuse of U.S. and international laws and sought to vastly increase its power and influence over countries that the rational can in no way be mistaken as altruistic.

 

About the mirror? I would ask the same thing of anyone who voted for LBJ. I find the consequences of the past 7+ years horrific. While my tone may have been harsh initially, there has to be some sort of discourse in order to move ahead. The solution has to be bipartisan.

 

Instead any attempt in most forums for discusson de-evolves into sociopathic attacks and getting in the last work before running and hiding -- the Bill O'Reilly "shut off his microphone" school for debate.

 

I'm sorry if I fueled contempt, but I was also welcomed that this thread had inspired some real talk.

 

My $0.02

[mfwahl]

exactly. and i didn't know of rangel's position. if only it wouldn't be political suicide for him to get louder about this, but of course it would be.

He was pretty loud about it a year or two ago but interest quickly subsided. I think it's great idea in theory but I'm not ready to throw my full support behind it. Wait until I saw off my left foot.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

my left foot.

[MattZ]

Again, I do think that Bush had good intentions -- I fully believe that he thought invading Iraq would be a good thing, that wiretapping illegally would protect us from another attack, that torture is the only way to get terrorists to speak, that leaking Plame's identity was necessary, etc.

 

I don't think his intentions were evil. But I do think his willingness to put blinders on in an effort to achieve his (well-intentioned) goals was evil. And the fact that he was so successful in achieving those goals proves that he was very competent.

 

The fact that we weren't greeted as liberators just proved that he was wrong. Not evil or incompetent. All presidents are wrong. The fact that we got there in the first place because he had made up his mind to go there, and invented the reason to go, was evil.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Again, I do think that Bush had good intentions -- I fully believe that he thought invading Iraq would be a good thing, that wiretapping illegally would protect us from another attack, that torture is the only way to get terrorists to speak, that leaking Plame's identity was necessary, etc.

 

I don't think his intentions were evil. But I do think his willingness to put blinders on in an effort to achieve his (well-intentioned) goals was evil. And the fact that he was so successful in achieving those goals proves that he was very competent.

 

The fact that we weren't greeted as liberators just proved that he was wrong. Not evil or incompetent. All presidents are wrong. The fact that we got there in the first place because he had made up his mind to go there, and invented the reason to go, was evil.

 

By the same token, Hitler didn't wake up in jail one morning and say, "I'm going to start an evil empire." He came upon Germany at a time when he could build such blind nationalism. Abuse of power is evil, regardless of intentions.

 

"All presidents are wrong" interesting comment.

[Good Old Neon]

Great posts.

 

I would also add, that as voters, we certainly do share a responsibility for the actions of those we elect. Especially after, as in Bush

[EL the Famous]

all i was trying to get at, versus any sort of debate on the proper context of the word 'evil', is how damaging the language, tone and oft time disregard for legitimate discourse in favor of finger-wagging was to the drive to remove bush from office in the last election and how it could be just as damaging to those who aren't in favor of another republican administration under McCain.

 

i would agree wholeheartedly, that as voters, we certainly do share some amount of responsibility for the actions of those we elect. but there are limits. nobody has a crystal ball and, even after educating yourself on the candidates as much as possible, they can still jump the shark.

 

however, we are each allowed to make some level of priortization based on the myriad of ways to come to a point of full personal endorsement of a political candidate. where i get frustrated, is when people act like THEIR rationale is so much more important than anyone else's, that versus disagreeing w/ someone by solely stating their position, they have to point out why the other person's is so wrong, stupid, worthy of being unable to look at one's self in the mirror. it is exactly that type of supposed intellectual/moral high-horse we chastize those on the right with...when we are just as guilty of thumbing our noses.

 

complete disregard to other opinions, being too quick to accept intelligence that favors one's position and rejecting intelligence that doesn't meet with the same speed, IS a real problem...but it's hardly a problem exclusive to W, the republican party in general, etc. we're just as quick to hold an article from salon.com aloft as gospel or wikipedia entries that only support our own personal viewpoints.

 

matt, i'm not sure why you were explaining yourself to me either. you certainly don't need to. i was just elaborating on why chris doesn't feel that getting 'angry' or using/approving particular language in describing your view on the current adminstration is productive. it's a viewpoint i share and i thought my post you quoted was substantive, albeit emotionally-charged, input as to why.

 

as far as dissapointing or offending anybody, neither my red foxx-like posts nor my 'rant' was in any way shape or form different than how i've functioned here for the past X amount of years. there was no intent to intentionally offend or bait anybody. those posts were tame in comparison to a lot of what's posted in the ENTIRE 'Ummm' forum. so, if it's an issue of where it was posted versus what was posted...set me straight on the ground rules. i'm not saying this via PM because it's not directed at any one particular person and, to note, not one person PM'ed me to tell me they were offended...if that was the case, i would have stopped immediately.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

as far as dissapointing or offending anybody, neither my red foxx-like posts nor my 'rant' was in any way shape or form different than how i've functioned here for the past X amount of years. there was no intent to intentionally offend or bait anybody. those posts were tame in comparison to a lot of what's posted in the ENTIRE 'Ummm' forum. so, if it's an issue of where it was posted versus what was posted...set me straight on the ground rules. i'm not saying this via PM because it's not directed at any one particular person and, to note, not one person PM'ed me to tell me they were offended...if that was the case, i would have stopped immediately.

Your response was directed at Matt, but I appreciate your explanation nonetheless.

 

I can't agree that left wing finger-wagging -- as opposed to swift-boat-type attacks lost the election in 2004. But yes we all have to live with our decisions. My point is there are a great deal of people who don't and I don't understand that in the wake of the last seven years. The same people who inflicted their blind opinions and wills on a nation now put on blinders and sharpen their knives for the next kill.

 

I wouldn't consider holding an article from anywhere aloft as the gospel just because it supports my opinion. But I think any printed opinion and viewpoint where someone has developed a reasonable opinion helps to spark further discussion and shouldn't evolve into rants to make a point that has to be explained as "performance art."

 

Call me a shit, call me a pussy, but then explain why you think so. Take me apart for what I say if you think it's wrong, and expect feedback. De-evolving into childish crap is context that becomes too common on online forums because people hide behind obtuse screen names and say it's O.K. because "over there people are doing much worse."

 

The first amendment has been tested, for instance, it's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded movie house. But there are civil reasons for this to be so. I can't understand the reasoning behind someone yelling "fire," especially just because someone else has done it.

 

I didn't send this in a PM because I think my comments apply broadly. Thank you again for your response.

[Atticus]

Is that really hard?

 

could you keep it clean in here, please?

 

nevermind...