This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Universe Prince
Pages: 1 ... 225 226 [227] 228 229 ... 244
3391
« on: December 08, 2006, 01:11:52 AM »
Look, they're public figures, indeed the most prominent public figures in the country. While a definitive "diagnosis" of HW Bush's cry will have to await a competent "analysis" of which he is a part, as Crane has amply demonstrated there are plentiful circumstances upon which a theory can be competently based. And doing so is part of our right and duty as constituents, in a process which they fully consented to by entering the rings they did. Besides, the exercise is common-sensical and heuristic: What do you REALLY think weighs most pressingly on Senior's mind these days? And what does this expression of anguish reveal about the depth of our plight? It has great value to the national dialog, even if symbolic, which I contend it was not.
The sad thing is, I think you may actually be serious. Great value to the national dialog? Speculative rumormongering has no value to the national dialog. What does this expression of anguish reveal about the depth of our plight? Probably nothing at all. The real question is, what does this internet version of back-fence gossip reveal about us? I say it is not to our credit, not in the least.
3392
« on: December 07, 2006, 06:33:42 PM »
So, all manners of emotional expression are beyond understanding and interpretation, unless you "actually know the man?"
Is Father Bush so individualist, so unique that nothing can be said of his manner and practice of emotional expression?
No, and no. I did not say nothing can ever be said about his emotional expression. What I said was there doesn't seem to be any basis, other than wishful thinking, for assigning the man's emotional moment to thoughts of President G.W. Bush. You don't know him and he is not in your therapy group, therefore you have not enough knowledge to make an informed appraisal of his thoughts at the time of his tears.
However, I wouldn't suggest embracing it, for the dynamic here--unique, individualist, beyond interpretation unless the subject is 'actually known'--
I wouldn't suggest embracing that either. Probably why I did not suggest it in the first place.
The question then remains: was father Bush's emotional breakdown at Jeb's celebratory function one of congruence? (In therapy, btw, an emotional breakdown is usually regarded as an emotional 'breakthrough," signalling a collapse of defensive stance.)
Except of course that Bush the elder was not in therapy. And what happened hardly seems like an emotional breakdown, unless you're going to call all emotional expression with tears an emotional breakdown.
Was his emotionally expressive comportment appropriate to the circumstance?
Yes. It would not be the first time a father had tears in a moment pride for his son. That you seem unwilling to acknowledge this possibility only adds to my opinion that your approach to the situation is one of wishful thinking.
Some schools, I add here, using a tougher tough love approach, would suggest that usually at the bottom of the motivational barrel, when all is said and done, we are finally really talking about ourselves. In this particular frame of reference, one is left to decide if any feeling of failure as a father that he experienced dealt with the indefatigable merit badge winner Jeb, or the classically defiant, stubborn, rebellious, bent-to-disprove-father scapegoat son George.
Feeling of failure as a father? See, this is what I'm talking about. You don't know that any feeling of failure as a father was even remotely involved. There is nothing in the moment to suggest that such a feeling was in play, except, as I said before, your wishful thinking. You're making up what you want to believe about the moment and arguing it must be true because you "know" it is. Or, to put it in common terms, you're talking bullshit.
3393
« on: December 07, 2006, 05:50:32 PM »
Remember Ed Muskie?
That's why.
No, I did not remember Ed Muskie. I was an infant at the time of his 1972 crying incident, which I wouldn't know about if I hadn't looked it up at Wikipedia. But anyway, what does that have to do with Bush? 34 years is long time to hold a grudge.
3394
« on: December 07, 2006, 10:36:51 AM »
it reveals that (a) his vociferous denials of wimpishness were fraudulent, and reveal him to be a hypocrite,
I am still confused as to why the tears in public make him a wimp. Would you explain this, please?
3395
« on: December 07, 2006, 10:28:29 AM »
And yet, here he is publicly crying.
Okay, so he's no Randolph Scott, but so what if he cried in public? How does that make him a wimp? It's not like he broke down into a sobbing heap on the floor. The way you people keep talking about him publicly crying, you'd think he'd started weeping like a little girl. The man just let his emotions show for a moment and otherwise kept his composure. What is bad about that?
3396
« on: December 07, 2006, 10:08:45 AM »
Prince, of course I don't know that's what GHW Bush was thinking. I was imagining how and what I'd thing and feel if I were in the same position.
Last tnight I looked up "Jeb Bush groomed for President" and read some interesting articles. He has been groomed for it. He is thought to be the best and the brightest in the family.
Some of the articles mentioned "Bush fatigue."
I'm thinking Poppy is very proud of Jeb. That is what he said: "He lost, and he didn't whine." And then he cried.
At that point, I thought, how sad; Poppy probably thinks people are so tired of the Bush name that he won't be alive to see Jeb run for President.
Something he's probably been waiting for for years.
Possibly. But then again, maybe he was just proud of his son. Fathers sometimes are like that.
I guess it isn't the speculation that bothers me so much. It's the sense of authority that some used as if they were experts on the internal emotional and mental processes of G.H.W. Bush. Seems a bit juvenile to criticize the guy for something someone who doesn't know him thought he was thinking. I have to wonder how they would react if someone started talking about how Ted Kennedy is a fat drunk because that is how he deals with the guilt of leading this country toward bad policies and/or killing that girl in the car. (Not saying I believe that, 'cause I don't. Just using it as turn-about example.) I mean, it's really silly (to put it nicely) to make those kind of statements because we don't actually know those people. We may know them as public speakers or politicians, but we don't know them as people. We don't know what they are genuinely like at home or on an everyday basis or even on general conversation once a month sort of basis. Heck, we hardly know each other around the Saloon here.
Get Brassmask and me talking politics, and we're getting mean and calling names before too long. Get us talking about movies, and we're almost like old friends. But most people wouldn't know that because all they see around here is us talking politics. To suppose that we know public figures well enough to make judgments about what may or may not really be in their minds in personal moments is patently absurd.
3397
« on: December 06, 2006, 10:05:13 PM »
Ahh, is this a new format? When someone lies about X, we're not allowed to highlight that? And that highlight automatically applies to everything they say? I must have missed the memo.
Um, no. I didn't say that. But if you're going to start accusing someone of "complete bald faced lies", seems to me you should not then be surprised if the person you're accusing takes offense at being called a liar, because you have at that point indirectly said that person is a liar. This isn't rocket science. This is common sense. Or at least it should be common sense.
3398
« on: December 06, 2006, 09:46:46 PM »
It seems apparent to me, at least, that Herbert Walker's grief was largely influenced by W's now univerally recognized abject failure, and that his forced-upon-us war may quite possibly evolve as the most salient American political debacle of the century.
It seems apparent to me that none of the people who seem so certain G.H.W. Bush was weeping over G.W. Bush have any basis for this except something along the lines of "well, that must be it." As best I can tell, none of you actually know the man, so your insistence that his crying must be about G.W. Bush comes off as really pathetic wishful thinking.
There are times when I think I'm becoming too cynical, but then I come here and watch people try to assign all manner of imagined subtext to the littlest details of the words and/or actions of political or ideological opponents, and then present these silly figments as justification or evidence of some nonsense notion or other. And then I know I'm barely scratching the surface of cynical.
3399
« on: December 06, 2006, 09:23:47 PM »
Oswald was a patsy and possibly an American hero who was more than likely out to stop the assassination by surveiling the operatives who were planning it.
Please tell me you're joking.
3400
« on: December 06, 2006, 03:42:47 PM »
I was calling Tee on what he was specifically lying about. Not making some grand proclaimation that Tee was a liar.
Um, yeah, why ever would he take offense at that? I don't see how he could possibly connect being accused of lying with being called a liar. Well, except for that part about being accused of lying. Pooh yi.
3401
« on: December 06, 2006, 03:37:31 PM »
3402
« on: December 06, 2006, 12:33:50 PM »
I don't know why everyone is picking on Michael Tee. He and I had a nice discussion going, but that got sidetracked by people calling him a liar and then expecting him not to be upset by that. I'm frankly rather annoyed that this ended up having to be about Michael Tee rather than the issues.
3403
« on: December 06, 2006, 12:26:34 PM »
Did you miss the part I put 1st?
No. I saw the first paragraph, but I also saw the second. The basic theme of the two paragraphs, taken in context and together, appeared on the surface to be that open borders were going to result in the advancement of socialist politics.
The following paragraph simply stems from the original problem(s). But obviously they're issues you simply want to turn a blind eye, yet claim that's my big beef.
Uh, no. They're issues I'm not going to blame on immigrants, legal or illegal. And you are the one who was doing the complaining about the matter, so I'm a little confused as to why you're upset.
Again, I say A, but Prince insists I say B
No. You said A and now insist you meant not-A. If you didn't mean to complain about socialist policies, then I suggest you should have phrased your argument differently.
I'm just not willing to blame the immigrants for something that is not their fault.
Who said it was their fault entirely?
I don't know. I said they are not to blame, meaning in this case that I believe it is not their fault at all.
You're saying that have no impact what-so-ever??
No. I never said anything like that. I said they are not to blame.
And let's keep this focused......we're referring to illegal immigrants, not just immigrants
We are? Since when? I've been arguing in favor of open borders and talking therefore about immigrants not just illegal immigrants.
No, I'm choosing to best protect both our finite resources, our Healthcare system, our national security, & yet still allow for orderly LEGAL immigration to this country, so that they may work and create a better life for themselves.
By punishing the immigrants with needlessly burdensome immigration law that prevents them from being able to simply come here to work and create a better life for themselves.
Traditionally, that's called following the American dream.
I don't remember having to wait for months and possibly years to get into the country being part of the American dream. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is not at all part of the American dream.
No one's being "prevented" from coming in,
The quotation marks mean you're joking, right?
the borders haven't been closed, so cease with the hyperbole, por fa vor. If I simply wanted to (as you claim) be against immigrants, I'd be advocating complete border closure, no one gets in, all applications to be torn up, tough luck, go peddle your wares in your own country. Oh yea, mass round-ups. Strangely, I'm not doing that, despite how often you keep implying I am. More of that A/B thing again
I have implied nothing of the sort. I meant only what I said. Try quoting me in context. What I said was that you're "against immigrants who simply want to come here to work and create a better life for themselves because you are against simply letting them do that." If that is A/B it is because you're complaining about something I didn't actually say.
You support instead a bureaucratic labyrinth of nearly mythic proportions that is intended precisely to prevent immigrants from simply coming here to work, et cetera. I don't see how you could be considered not against it when you clearly oppose it.
"it" being IILEGAL Immigration.
Uh, no. That antecedent to "it" was not "illegal immigration". You know, for someone who complains so much about me misrepresenting your position, you seem to have gone out of your way to insist I meant things I never said. Anyway, the antecedent to "it" was, in point of fact, immigrants "simply coming here to work, et cetera." And as I said, I don't see how you could be considered not against it when you clearly oppose it.
And so we endeth the debate, as I'm no longer willing to entertain your version of what my position actually is.
At this point, I'm not sure you even know what my version of your position is because you kept trying to force meaning to my words that simply was not there. But yeah, if you're going to be doing that, we probably should end the debate. No point in going on if you're going to keep insisting I meant things I did not say.
3404
« on: December 06, 2006, 01:16:33 AM »
The way to ensure the loyalty of a new member is to have him do something that a Policeman can't.
If a killing is no longer enough , something better will have to be thought up.
So, are you for law enforcement allowing murders to occur unchecked as long as the murders help an informant or undercover guy stay on a case?
3405
« on: December 06, 2006, 01:13:29 AM »
The government telling the media what to say goes back to at least the 70s.
I'm sure it goes back further than that. And I'm sure the government regularly tells the news media what not to say, it just seems a shame that such would happen here.
Pages: 1 ... 225 226 [227] 228 229 ... 244
Show Posts