Is this why Henry Cate is such a crackpot?

C'mon Henry, fess up - you're a scaredy cat. According to the latest psychological analysis of why people vote the way they do, people who are easily startled by loud bangs or gruesome pictures are more likely to vote for right-wing policies compared to calmer people who take a more liberal approach to life. The study, published in the journal Science, investigated 46 Americans with strong opinions spanning the political spectrum who were tested for their physiological responses to a range of visually threatening pictures and loud noises
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 35417.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nervous-people-are-likely-to-be-rightwing-935417.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaredy_Cat

I think living in a town famed for its cock sucking attacks by overweight katooey on hapless sleeping drivers is evidence of a certain style of courage, Homing Toupe. Qualitatively different from the sewage swimmers of the Gulf or the monoxide inhalers of the capital but courageous, nonetheless.

[rincondog]

BOO

Sorry for the free Pshycoanalysis Henry, but you remind me of those Democrats back in '88 when Dukakis was furiously backpedalling trying deny he was a "Liberal". They tried to style themselves "Progressives" instead and many would not be caught dead admitting they were Dems but called themselves "Independents".

So here we have Henry styling himself an "Independent Libertarian"

But far from being "independent" he's never really had anything good to say about any Democratic President since Andrew Jackson and seems to repeat every party lie...uh, I mean line... straight from the Republican playbook.

And as far as being a "Libertarian", he seems not to realize that he supports a President that has done more to erode personal liberty, expand government intrusion into our personal lives and erode Constitutional checks and balances more than any leader in our history.
For a "Libertarian" he seems to have a very tenuous grasp of the concept of Civil Liberties.

Sorry Henry, if it looks like a Republican and quacks like a Republican.... don't try to put lipstick on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9ya6G5S8MA

Sorry for the free Pshycoanalysis Henry, but you remind me of those Democrats back in '88 when Dukakis was furiously backpedalling trying deny he was a "Liberal". They tried to style themselves "Progressives" instead and many would not be caught dead admitting they were Dems but called themselves "Independents".

So here we have Henry styling himself an "Independent Libertarian"

But far from being "independent" he's never really had anything good to say about any Democratic President since Andrew Jackson and seems to repeat every party lie...uh, I mean line... straight from the Republican playbook.

And as far as being a "Libertarian", he seems not to realize that he supports a President that has done more to erode personal liberty, expand government intrusion into our personal lives and erode Constitutional checks and balances more than any leader in our history.
For a "Libertarian" he seems to have a very tenuous grasp of the concept of Civil Liberties.

Sorry Henry, if it looks like a Republican and quacks like a Republican.... don't try to put lipstick on it.

So now Democrats offer free "Pshycoanalysis" to people who don't toe the party line.

That's fine, really fine. Rather than debate the issues, try to put your opponent on a couch and analyze his "illness."


he seems not to realize that he supports a President that has done more to erode personal liberty, expand government intrusion into our personal lives and erode Constitutional checks and balances more than any leader in our history.

What the hell are you talking about, kenc? Come on, spell it out:

(1) What has Bush done to erode personal liberty?

(2) What has he done to expand government intrusion into our private lives?

(3) What has he done to erode checks and balances?

I can foresee your reply to question (2), which will of course mention Bush's measures against known or suspected terrorists placing phone calls to known terrorists abroad. But I think...not sure...that you know that this idea was a good one, and was just renewed by both houses of Congress, including apparently Nobama, who for once did not vote "Present."

I also suspect that BushHitler and all that cr*p is just waiting for you to vent it.

To which I reply: it's all politics, some of it dirtier than the rest. George W. Bush was just another President.

As for your title, "Not a Crackpot, Just Mentally Divergent," just sit back and think, kenc. Are differing opinions not allowed any more? What would you think if someone applied that title to YOU as a depraved homosexual?

Oh, we are ALL so tolerant...........in the Radiant Future.

[Bob]

(1) What has Bush done to erode personal liberty?

(2) What has he done to expand government intrusion into our private lives?


You can name three things or 500. Bushie Jr. has just about fucked up every aspect of domestic and international matters for the US.

As to the first two you asked about, I really can't believe you have to ask those questions. Have you been reading the newspapers around here for the last 5-6 years?

(1) What has Bush done to erode personal liberty?
(2) What has he done to expand government intrusion into our private lives?You can name three things or 500. Bushie Jr. has just about fucked up every aspect of domestic and international matters for the US. As to the first two you asked about, I really can't believe you have to ask those questions. Have you been reading the newspapers around here for the last 5-6 years?I'd have thought the so-called "war on terror" has been the biggest attack on personal liberty and expansion of government intrusion into our private lives since the McCarthy era. He was a republican too, wasn't he?

....
(1) What has Bush done to erode personal liberty?

(2) What has he done to expand government intrusion into our private lives?

(3) What has he done to erode checks and balances?.....

Henry, you're just such a lost cause I'm not going to bother anymore.

You apparently aren't able to see what 70% of the American public are able to see.

I asked three plain questions, and the only answers I got were "That's so obvious we don't have to explain it to you."

That constitutes "No reply."


You apparently aren't able to see what 70% of the American public are able to see.

Does that refer to Oprah, or TV wrestling?

Of course, this sort of stuff runs both ways. My Dad was once commenting to his "friend" Sol Price, "Do you realize that 60% of the American public believes that TV wrestling is LEGITIMATE?" Old Sol guffawed and said, "Why not? 60% voted for Reagan!!" :-)

So what is this Great Mystery which has been Revealed to 70% of My Fellow Americans, and Yet Remains Hidden From Me?

Sources would be appreciated. :-)

[cottmann]

...So what is this Great Mystery which has been Revealed to 70% of My Fellow Americans, and Yet Remains Hidden From Me? Sources would be appreciated. :-)


What GWB had done to erode civil and other liberties as od late 2002:

* Holding citizens indefinitely without access to the courts or counsel.

* Monitoring library withdrawals and Internet communications.

* Taping attorney-client communications.

* Attempting to create a national reporting system for citizens to monitor one another in their day-to-day activities.

* Developing a massive computer system to monitor every purchase by every citizen, from hospital bills to gasoline.

* Establishing a huge surveillance system, including the expansion of searches ordered by a secret court without satisfying the probable cause standards of the Constitution.

* Claiming the right to create a military tribunal system to try and execute suspects without applying the Constitution or federal laws.

* Assisting private organizations in creating the foundation for a national identification card that could easily become a type of internal passport for citizens.

* Recommending state laws (already adopted in many states) that give governors virtual dictatorial control after they unilaterally declare emergencies because of "potential" health threats.

* Expanding the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.

* Endorsing the broad use of assassination as an alternative to capture, including the possible assassination of citizens.

* Refusing to apply the Geneva Convention and then later agreeing to apply only part of it. Most recently, it was disclosed that the U.S. created a facility in Afghanistan where suspects reportedly had been tortured by U.S. officials or sent to surrogate nations for more aggressive torture.

The source: "Liberty Ebbs by Degrees" by Jonathan Turley, LA Times, Thursday January 2, 2003, B-13. Online at http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jan/02 ... oe-turley2 (http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jan/02/opinion/oe-turley2)