Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do you think some of us have too much anger

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Phatfish Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:31 PM
Original message
Do you think some of us have too much anger
Edited on Tue Nov-11-03 11:49 PM by Phatfish
against those with opposing views? I just took a stroll over to FReepville and looked at the Starpass discussion. The venom they were spitting to "all lefties" was sickening. After reading about 70 posts, I began to see something... it was a resemblence to some of our own posts in here. Just replace "Nazi-liberals" and "whiney tree-huggers" with "Cash Whores" and "Gun lovers" and they sound frighteningly similar. I know, for many of us, this is a place to vent our frustrations on the world, yet I feel we need to remember that many of those with different views are still decent human beings and generalizations lead to prejudices. I think we can come here and still be outraged with the world and some of its occupants without painting with a broad brush. Just something to think about.

PS I still love you all :)

EDIT: PPS I am not talking about the state of our country. I have already seen many posts about this. I am speaking about when we talk about those who believe in ideals seperate from our own. We seem to use ugly generalizations sometimes and I feel we should look at our approach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Anger is a gift.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phatfish Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. in moderation and with due responsibilty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Anger is, by its nature, not moderate
Edited on Tue Nov-11-03 11:36 PM by WilliamPitt
but I think we do well considering

the election was stolen

the treasury has been looted

the environment has been fucked

400 soldiers are dead in Iraq

7500 more are wounded

they are hiding this. Body bags are now called 'transfer tubes.'

there are no WMDs

Osama is gone

There used to be two towers in New York

The bill of rights was raped

the media reports none of this.

Mad? You'd better fucking believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Righto! I'm a seething cauldren of boiling oil...
...just waiting to get poured over the castle wall.

Onto the marauders at the gate.

This isn't a game we're playing here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phatfish Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. I wasn't talking about the state of our nation
though it can get anyone a little fired up. I am talking about when we refer to those on the right with gross generalizations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HighNoonMeetUp Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. There used to be two towers in New York
Who should we be angry at for that act? Whom do we blame?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. You asked...I answer.
Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious leaks from Ken Starr's office, leaving the American people drowning in a swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance.

Over and above the theoretical questions regarding whether or not Clinton's anti-terror policies, if passed, would have stopped September 11 lies the very real fact that attacks very much like 9/11 were, in fact, stopped dead by the Clinton administration. The most glaring example of this came on December 31, 1999, when the world gathered to celebrate the passing of the millennium. On that night, al Qaeda was gathering as well.

The terrorist network planned to simultaneously attack the national airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in Jordan, a constellation of holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans at dock in Yemen. Each and every single one of these plots, which ranged from one side of the planet to the other, was foiled by the efforts of the Clinton administration. Speaking for the first time about these millennium plots, in a speech delivered to the Coast Guard Academy on May 17, 2000, Clinton said, "I want to tell you a story that, unfortunately, will not be the last example you will have to face."

Indeed.

Clinton proved that Osama bin Laden and his terror network can be foiled, can be thwarted, can be stopped. The multifaceted and complex nature of the international millennium plots rivals the plans laid before September 11, and involved counter-terrorism actions within several countries and across the entire American intelligence and military community. All resources were brought to bear, and the terrorists went down to defeat. The proof is in the pudding here. September 11, like the millennium plots, could have been avoided.

Couple this with other facts about the Bush administration we now have in hand. The administration was warned about a massive terror plot in the months before September by the security services of several countries, including Israel, Egypt, Germany and Russia. CIA Director George Tenet delivered a specific briefing on the matter to the administration on August 8, 2001. The massive compendium of data on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda compiled by Sandy Berger, and delivered to Condoleezza Rice upon his departure, went completely and admittedly unread until the attacks took place. The attacks themselves managed, for over an hour, to pierce the most formidable air defense system in the history of the Earth without a single fighter aircraft taking wing until the catastrophe was concluded.

It is not fashionable these days to pine for the return of William Jefferson Clinton. Given the facts above, and the realities we face about the administration of George W. Bush, and the realities we endure regarding the aftermath of September 11, the United States of America would be, and was, well served by its previous leader. That we do not know this, that September 11 happened at all, that it was such a wretched shock to the American people, that we were so woefully unprepared, can be laid at the feet of a failed news media establishment, and at the feet of a pack of power-mad conservative extremists who now have a great deal to atone for.

Had Clinton been heeded, the measures he espoused would have been put in place, and a number of powerful bulwarks would have been thrown into the paths of those commercial airplanes. Had the news media been something other than a purveyor of masturbation fantasies from the far-right, the American people would have know the threats we faced, and would have compelled their Congressmen to act. Had Congress itself been something other than an institution ruled by narrow men whose only desire was to break a sitting President by any means necessary, we would very probably still have a New York skyline dominated by two soaring towers.

Had the Bush administration not continued this pattern of gross partisan ineptitude and heeded the blitz of domestic and international warnings, instead of trooping off to Texas for a month-long vacation, had Bush's National Security Advisor done one hour's worth of her homework, we probably would not be in the grotesque global mess that currently envelops us. Never forget that many of the activists who pushed throughout the 1990s for the annihilation of all things Clinton are now foursquare in charge of the country today.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_101303A.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phatfish Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. powerful post
and I love whats in it. However, I think some people may be elevating my critique to this heavily socratic level that I did not mean to put it on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. That's what I get paid for
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #22
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
VermontDem2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. Who cares about Amazon reviews?
From the reviews here you can tell he's good at what he does, as the one-star reviews are obviously from dittohead drones who don't wipe themselves until their Lord and Savior Limbaugh tells them to.

Will Pitt is the right's worst nightmare: someone who tells the truth. You wouldn't think that's much to fear, but in a world where 70% of people believe Iraq was involved in 9/11, people who tell the truth are a rare find indeed.

Will Pitt's views on the CEO scandals, how the media changed after 9/11, and on how that 2000 election we're always told to "get over" may not have been on the up-and-up after all (Who's father appointed those SCOTUS justices? Not Gore's.) are a must read for anyone who's interested in more than if Ben and J-Lo are back together again.

Its a shame that the world needs people like Will Pitt to state the obvious truths - like how Bush's economic plan is ruining the country while giving his richest friends a huge bonus- , its even more of a shame that places like Fox News has made it a needed service in these times.

If you're looking for a honest and unflinching view on the state of the world and how we got to the point we're at, Will Pitt is the author for you. If you prefer your books to be full of jingoistic flag-waving, I'm sure Hannity has a new screed in the works.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #49
56. "Oh, please" yourself!
Edited on Wed Nov-12-03 09:38 AM by William Seger
That Amazon page quotes Greg Palast as saying, "Williams Rivers Pitt helps us see what's wrong with American politics today."

May I add my personal testimony that that is right on target. It was from Mr. Pitt that I first learned, last year, about the PNAC and their agenda. It sounded like some wild-eyed conspiracy theory, but it didn't take long to confirm that he was speaking the truth, and it didn't take much longer to see how successful they were in hijacking America's foreign policy.

If you can't see how this administation is manipulating the "conservative base" to push this country toward fascism, perhaps you don't understand what the word means; perhaps you don't understand how serious the situation is. His statement that "patriotic Americans fear to speak out against the government" certainly was true about the so-called Democratic leadership until it was too late to do anything about the illegal, immoral, and completely stupid invasion of Iraq. It's really a shame that Mr. Pitt's anger didn't reach more people before we got to that point.

Honestly, did you write that review on Amazon yourself? I'd say you have a little maturing to do, yourself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Well, it would help if the Bush administration would cooperate
with the investigations so that we COULD know who to be angry at and who to blame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
64. Yup
Sometimes NOT being angry is crazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
24. Mindless anger is a gift to the enemy.
It leads people to make bad decisions.

How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it.
- Marcus Aurelius

I'm not a big one for quotations, but this is one I have always liked, because it's true. Decisions made out of anger are almost always the source of regret, in my experience.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
58. Anger Has NO BUSINESS Being A Directive Force
Propulsive yes, directive absolutely NOT!

Having practised martial arts I can categorically state that anger is an impediment which throws you off balance.

Anger is a fine motivator but leave it out of the actual combat!

Anger if a function of ego. To keep your balance you have to be rooted enough to let anger and incoming forces channel through. Ego and anger end up making you a target not a channel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. Not enough actually
Our country is being squandered by thieves and lunatics.

I'm amazed that people are as calm as they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. I would rather people be smart than angry
Edited on Tue Nov-11-03 11:40 PM by jpgray
Being angry will only cause you to constantly bicker with people you disagree with, whereas if you are smart, you will be able to see when neither person is going to change his/her mind.

An angry debater turns people off, while a collected one will draw interest. It's Tao, man--he who does not compete has no competition.

:)

I should add that controlled or affected anger (which isn't really "anger") has been used with success by politicians for a long time. It's the real stuff that makes you look like a jackass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #5
59. My Stupidest Moves Have Come From Anger
and a bruised ego. :dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. What the hell is the matter with you. Who the ef do you think you are.
Don't come here and make judgements. Take your opinion and shove it where the sun don't shine. You bleeding heart liberal.........you.

Just kidding.....Yep people do get a little hostile. These are crazy times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. WELL LET'S F****ING SEE
THAT FUCKWIT STOLE THE ELECTION, TRASHED THE ECONOMY, IS TRASHING THE FUTURE OF AMERICA; ILLEGALLY INVADED A COUNTRY AND KILLED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE; PUT OUR SOLDIERS IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE GETTING PICKED OFF DAILY...........need I go on? THESE ARE REASONS TO HATE.

The f***ing freepers are just DELUDED ASSHOLES who think CLINTON IS THE REASON FOR ALL OF ABOVE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phatfish Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. WillPitt already stole your thunder
but the CAPS made you look good. Not really though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #10
33. for EMPHASIS
it bears repeating: IF THERE WERE EVER REASONS TO HATE, THOSE ARE THE REASONS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. Too much anger in our rhetoric; not enough in our actions
Where are the millions of protesters that took the streets in the moments precipitating the Iraq War? Why are we cowering back to our holes now that we've been proven right about every single thing!

Perhaps we privately gloat, assuming the rest of the people appreciate the breadth of our moral victory- we were right that the war was unjustified.

Unfortunately, every poll on the matter suggests that the people do not understand. We must make them. If the press neglects the fundamental role it has been given in our political process in reporting the truth, we must take the streets to take the message to the people ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phatfish Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. welcome atre
but again I am only really speaking about when we talk about the people who believe in republican ideals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frank frankly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
12. anger is the only appropriate response to this
murdering bunch of stupid fascist POS bastards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
14. which different views are you talking about?
Edited on Tue Nov-11-03 11:50 PM by noiretblu
the stolen election? the bogus war? i think you are illustrating a part of the problem that got us where we are right now. it's not about name-calling (your point is taken on that) but it is about an utterly FALSE sense of etiquette...of the kind that allowed a coup to occur in this country with barely a peep from the opposition. not to mention everything else that's happened since. this isn't merely about "opposing views"...it's about the very SOUL of this country. you don't "play nice" with people who disenfranchise voters, brand recounts as some sort of sinister plot, and use the highest court in the land as their party's personal seal of approval...among other things. so how about less name-calling, and more righteous OUTRAGE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phatfish Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. you can argue with people all you want
and question their ideals and the places they are coming from when you know that information. You can't just say "all republicans are just Gun-toting rednecks who love Bush and love the war" (i'm not saying that you said this... but I'm sure you did :) ). I just think we should fight ideas, and people when we know their stances on issues but not groups of people who we have never met.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. i agree with you on that
Edited on Tue Nov-11-03 11:59 PM by noiretblu
but frankly, as long as they continue to support bush, inc...they are fair game, imho, because this is not merely about opposing views. i am certainly happy that some republicans are coming to their senses and realizing that supporting this coup was never a good idea, and certainly not a moral one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
17. Republicans are always telling me to "let go of the hate"
But then, these are the exact same folks who thought the country was doomed when our last REAL President got his dick sucked. Hell, they're still spewing hate over that one.

Fuck yes I'm angry :grr: and I can't sum up the list of reasons why any better than Will did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phatfish Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-03 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. can't we be better then them?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #21
30. We are already better than them - no rhetorical backflips necessary
First of all, there are plenty of people here who know full well that Tom DeLay does not equal Olympia Snowe, and the Lincoln Chaffee is no James Inhofe. There are solid, capable, honest and intelligent Republicans out there, both in the political arena and in private life - almost everybody on DU probably knows of, knows or is related to at least a few.

Unfortunately, solid, capable and intelligent Republicans no longer call the shots.

What we are left with is the challenge of dealing with a thug like DeLay, a lying moron like Inhofe, a zealot like Ashcroft and the charter member of the Lucky Sperm Club who ostensibly controls the whole show. Their lies never stop, their depredations never end, their pustulent self-righteousness knows no limit, and we can see just how much the concerns of traditional Republicans like, let's say, Jim Jeffords, matter to them.

If you really think that people like DeLay, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et. al., are going to respond to our shocked expressions of concern, delicately couched, in subtly patriotic gift wrap, you are sadly mistaken. They know exactly what they want and they will do whatever they want to get it. Politically speaking, we have got to stop worrying about looking "divisive" or "angry". it is time to get out the baseball bats, sharpen the skinning knives and START FIGHTING BACK.

As for the GOP Ton-Ton Macoutes of Free Republic and the bulk of the AM spectrum, who gives a shit? They deserve exactly the same reception as their programmers in the beltway.

The leaders of the opposition with whom we can reasonably disagree have long since departed, beginning in 1994. Nothing other than the proverbial two-by-four across the head seems to reach the walnut-sized brains of those who now (sad to relate) control the American government.

I suggest we start using it vigorously and often. I'm tired of being polite and I'm also tired of being kicked in the balls by lying sons of bitches..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. And therein lies the rub
"Unfortunately, solid, capable and intelligent Republicans no longer call the shots."
Yup. You hit that one out of the ballpark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
25. The problem is devisive anger, not "righteous indignation"
Edited on Wed Nov-12-03 12:14 AM by Selwynn
Disclaimer: I am not above the fray. I have exhibited the wrong kind of anger on more than one occasion.

In my opinion, as a person who has thought a lot about anger, I believe that anger itself is not the problem. At least insofar as we recognize an travesty or a hypocrisy, and rather than be apathetic we are indignant about such injustice, that indignation towards injustice is not the problem.

No, the problem is where that anger leads.

Does it lead to statesmanship? Or even outside of the strictly political sphere does it move us to compassion rather than a spirit of divisiveness? By compassion I don't mean an attitude of "oh you are guilty of the most terrible travesties of the century, but you're so sweet I can help but like ya!" What I mean instead is the difference between a heart that is motivated by love for humanity verses a heart that fuels itself on its own anger, and thus consumes itself after accomplishing nothing, or worse - a person that is genuinely fuled by little more than hatred for others.

To be sure, it may be hatred for people the person believes are wrong, evil, bad, hypocritical, tyrannical or hateful themselves, but it is still hate just the same. I do not believe anything good can ever, ever, come from hate no matter who it is directed at. Hate, like the violence it is closely associated with, inevitably only begets more hate in the future.

The problem is not that are anger at injustice is stirred when we see suffering or when we recognize those who cause others to suffer. The problem is not anger at the evils in the world. The problem is what is really in our hearts deeper than the anger. The real question is, do we deep down in our hearts desire a world in which peace, love, tolerance and equality were always present? Do we desire a world in which the number one motivating factor of everyone was concern for fellow human beings, human rights, justice and equity? It doesn't matter whether we believe that kind of utopian dream is possible or not. The question is: is this really what we desire?

Or, if we were really, really honest with ourselves, do we kind of enjoy being "angry" at "the other guys?" Do we, at some level, in enjoy a world with someone to hate, something to be pissed of at, someone to blame the crapiness of our own lives on - a scapegoat, a blamesake, an object for the aggression which at some level we enjoy?

The problem is not people who feel anger at injustice an are able to funnel that anger constructively and compassionately into positive action. And we see that on these boards, and we shouldn’t forget that. Amidst the scores of people who are frequently just blowing off steam and getting away with behavior they can't get away with in real life are also some people consistently bearing witness to the rest of us of the power in funneling indignation into positive action.

No, the problem lies with people who like being angry, who enjoy having someone to hate. And a lot of times, politics is the last refuge of the hate-lover. It's not socially acceptable to be a racist anymore, homophobia is on the way out, extreme misogyny is in the closet - politics is the last place where people feel like its ok to hate people, and its ok to say the most vile, wretched, despicable things about the opposition or about one's own colleagues because "that's politics."

The problem is not anger itself - the problem is people who like being angry, don't really want to work for solutions, and enjoy divisiveness. And such people come in ALL colors -- especially both Blue and Red. :)

I think there are an awful lot of people at DU and an awful lot of people at Free Republic who would be pretty darn miserable in a utopian world where everyone loved each other and worked together harmoniously. I think there are an awful lot of people who really don't desire peace, or cooperation, or a "better" world in that sense. They like the fact that they have an excuse to get away with all kinds of attitudes and actions that would be intolerable in any other context.

Anyway, I'm becoming redundant, so I'll stop. The problem isn't seeing an injustice and feeling indignant and allowing that indignation to move you to action. The problem is anger that leads to divisiveness and people who like that and have no real interest in anything but more divisiveness.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
26. There's way too much *misdirected* anger here.
Sometimes, from the look of the place, one could get the impression that our real enemy is Howard Dean or Wesley Clark or John Edwards etc. rather than the squatter in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #26
67. Yes, or even Jessica Lynch.
nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
27. Anger is a defiling emotion, once grasped it increases exponentially until
Edited on Wed Nov-12-03 12:16 AM by sam sarrha
it is replaced with another emotion, of the mind is calmed. once a thought, thing or concept is associated with a negative emotion it is difficult to imposable to communicate or discuss it in any way that will change the initial mind set. This is known to the NEOCON's and Reich Wingers... that is why they have institutionalized the present 24/7 culture of hate, anger and intolerance. It controls the minds of their minions and armours them against reason and truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleDannySlowhorse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
28. It depends
Anger is only a good or bad thing depending on what you do with it. I certainly don't think bitching about right-wingers on a discussion board is anything to be worried about. It's all pretty healthy, I think. It's when anger is manipulated to achieve the aims of the extreme wing of a major national party that I start to have trouble with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
29. no. I think most of us don'thate nearly enough
yet
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AmandaRuth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
32. hell no
I would be a little less angry if one, just one reThug would step up top the plate and admit that Faux news and hate radio are the communications department of the reThug company, that they spent 8 years and 40 millions dollars ignoring growing threats to our country while they perused a clinton witch hunt, that they stole the election and by virtue of having their cronies build the next generation voting machines, want to "guarantee" Bush will be reelected. You may want to treat the thugs with tolerence, I think the word they used for the relationship they desire with us was date rape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
curse10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
34. Anger is a liability
to many. Anger rarely leads to clarity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
35. You can't have discourse if you're shouting at each other. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snazzy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
36. with all the talk about hate...
I have to say that everyday that becomes a slightly better word to describe my thoughts on whatever core is driving the current trainwreck.

I don't think there's a stronger word or I'd be there.

Yep, no broad brush, ok. I'd say the vast majority of republicans I run into are a dupe to current directions for one reason or another--mostly just that misguided good for business thing. My small sample.

I never got to the "hate" level before. Not with Reagan, not with Bush I. Too young for Nixon, except in retrospect. But even then, I don't think I'd feel such personal animosity, despite his horrors.

So why? Must have something to do with the media--that's the first thing that comes to mind. All of their policy ancestors had some accountability that they actually made an effort, however limited, to address. The public and the public good were each not totally denied. Now it's just a big middle finger and nobody seems to notice. Gotta be the media and add to that such perfectly perfected techniques to control same.

But second, and harder to nail down, is the ideology is their religion thing. The guys driving the trainwreck somehow think that gleam in their eye--and there is one--is the light of Jesus (and I'm not trying to offend religious folks here). The gleam is something entirely opposite. Reason has been completely abandoned to follow whatever twisted path. I don't think that's happened to a Presidency before. It is a crusade.

Third, we used to put our collective faith in a smart man; now that's totally gone, robbed of the electorate and the intentions of the Founders and replaced with a shell, a figure head. "True power rests behind the throne" Richard Neville kinda stuff. Now this I could say about Reagan, so I think the first two points rule in terms of how I derive my particular headache and angst. However it seems like an experiment to get to this point, somehow. Junior with Cheney, Senior with Reagan, Senior with Quayle. With the intent behind it being that the ideology is more important than the man. Toss in some Ford while we're at it.

All the same guys, and always trying to find a loophole in this Democracy thing. Largely, they seem to have been successful.

Maybe my thinking is indeed colored by my own extreme emotions about what is happening to my country, dunno. But I wish more of our Democrats in Congress had the fire that comes from real, and I believe, appropriate hate. Not against the ditto heads, but against this force that will subvert everything in its quest for a bigger me me me.

Today I happened on Bush at Heritage on Cspan. Sound off, window in PC, thankfully. And I got to see audience shots, and I kept thinking, these people look weird. And, on reflection I know it's that odd gleam in their eyes I was talking about earlier. Now these Heritage people are of course the neocon wacko core and explicitly today's and our problem. Sure. But they really looked different to me. Is my thinking being colored by my emotions? Not sure. But they looked like they were deriving some guilty pleasure to me. Kid in the cookie jar, and not caught, would be nice way to put it. But more like a crowd watching a cockfight, or some lecherous or perverted and certainly illegal event. They weren't cheering GW with their heart and souls, it was ... I don't know excatly what the hell it was.

But, they looked guilty.


---------

It started simple... Turned into one of those vent/rant/diatribe things. Feels good though! Well, thanks DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #36
42. I've often wondered
if I would've felt the same way about Reagan and Bush I if I had been more politically aware during their tenures. Thank you for perspective like this...it is good to know that there really is something radically different about this current gang of thugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snazzy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #42
50. the same motives, same people, same thread
but totally unrestrained and drunk on it.

There was a great series of FOIA stuff that I thought I had bookmarked from the Natl Sec Archive ( http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ ). Under Ford. Cheney is there (but a minor player). Bush is DIA. Kissinger. Think Rummy was in the room too. They are discussing Levi, the AG.

This was when Ford, on account of fall out, is reigning in the intelligence services, starting what becomes FISA, mostly preventing domestic spying.

Derisively they are attacking Levi, saying, rough quote, Bush: "he actually believes he represents the people." And more or less they vow to change that (witness the anointed one, some 25 years later). Ford was the good guy in that particular mess, supporting Levi. But he had to be--the people knew. Nixon.

It's mostly the same assholes, different day. But now they operate with no restraint at all. So fanatically. Apparently never will they say "enough." Half-wit Junior has brought some cult members to the table who want to push it until they self-fulfill some uniquely crazy dreams. Just might happen too if we don't stop this now.

No way are these guys going quietly. This is going to be one hell of an election year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
37. Not enough anger -
when the People take to the streets, that's anger. Yugoslavia did what we should have done after Florida, thrown the asshole out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salinen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. pissed
anger is about all we have. we have lost everything. sometimes i think it's because we will only fight fair. (remember jfk, dr. king, robert, wellstone). nobody can convince us to murder our enemy. no body can convince us to lie about our enemy (medved, hannity, rush, hume, safire, novak, coulter). in other words, we go into battle underarmed. our soldiers have standards. this has become the formula for losing to this demented group. so, since we are not going to change to their tactics, get ready for the great conservative century! god help us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
38. I absolutely have too much anger
And in fact, I have too much hate.

AND -- I was never like that before Nov. 2000. Before then I hated no one (tho did come close a time or two). Now, it damn near consumes me.

And it's yet another reason I hate them.

Eloriel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
40. I can't get all touchy-feely,let's all embrace- kumbaya about righties
They're the antithesis of all things decent, good and honest. They aren't "troot mout" (truth mouth)

If it were but a question of opposing views, I'd agree with you... but this is more, ever so much more. They made it more when they waged a war on liberals. When they embraced all things Bush-and Bush is nothing but bad for America and the world. When they rallied behind the impeachment of a blow job. This country can't afford anymore of that brand of ignorance.

This country doesn't have the leisure of waiting for them to come around to their senses...








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #40
47. Funny, that's not true of my friend...
Who was a "rightie" all his life, because he never really thought about why he called himself a "republican." His is one of the nicest and most genuinely decent men I have ever met.

Becuase I did not just write him off, because I slowly over several years found opportunities to challeng his thinking - carefully and respectfully without being overbearing - my friend is starting to see the political light.

This is how we win. Grass roots. Getting it out of our heads that "they" are all the "enemy."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
41. I see what you're asking... not the STATE OF THE NATION but how
we deal with those on the other side of the aisle, so to speak.

I don't like the name calling, and when I can't prevent myself from doing so, I try not to. I'm not perfect. When I fail, I try to admit it.

I, too, spend some time at the neo-con sites, though ones that aren't so large and active. It's a grassroots thing.

It gives me new respect for myself, that I'm certain of. I don't consider myself a Nazi, a godless Commie, a pinko, an egg-head academic fascist, a baby killer... the list goes on.

(Full disclosure: I do consider myself Democratic socialist and pro-choice. I'm a strict separationist; I do hold advanced degrees in pretty academic fields, but I'm not interested in thought or mind control.)

Every time I get called those names, it reminds me that I should probably not be calling others by derogatory names. Sometimes I fail, admittedly.

I know there is a lot of chatter on all sides about "raising the level of the discourse" but nothing gets done about it on a wide scale. Just people like me who, unable to come up with something nice to call the man in La Casa Blanca, call him *, and call those on the other side Freepers (after their primary publication) or neo-cons.

I'm okay with that.

I'm not okay with the state of the nation or what's going on - again, in the interest of full disclosure, there's a large part of me that says we need to be naming names and asking for pistols at dawn at 30 paces. I'm okay with saying that the DLC is acting like a gutless wonder of a worm. I'm okay with saying we can't keep on this path and something's gotta change. That is not uncivilized.

But I also know that dueling is illegal these days and uncivilized times call for uncivilized means.

Maybe the DLC does need to get Larry Flynt's dirt. Or something. But us calling them names doesn't fix things... it just gives them ammunition.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
43. what anger?
:shrug:

I've got no anger...I've got love.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 01:59 AM
Original message
HELL NO! We've been TOO NICE, if you ask me!
All this talk about "bipartisanship" and working together after September 11th... Where has it gotten us? WHAT has it done us?

Confirmation of "General" John Ashcroft as Police State Attorney General
The Patriot Act
Authorization for Unilateral War
Patriot Act II
(Funding for) No Child Left Behind (Left Behind)
Reduction in Benefits for our Armed Forces
$hitty Appropriations Bill
The Middle Class supporting tax cuts for the wealthy

Hell YES, I'm angry. Did you not catch Senator Reid's filibuster on Monday? He's angry too. Did you read Senator Kennedy's words calling the basis for this "war" a made up lie straight outta Texas? He's angry as well.

I want those bastards to know my anger, to feel my anger, to be scared of my anger and the collective anger of the people who are gonna make these criminals pay for their crimes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Entente Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
44. What angers me the most
Edited on Wed Nov-12-03 02:06 AM by Entente
ab the repuclicans is their stupid and blind loyalty to Bush & CO.


I find it very disingenous and it makes talking w them frustrating and hopeless and it makes me feel angry and sometimes hateful.


Because you know that no matter what Bush does they will all faithfully vote for Bush all over again.


I have lost a lot of respect for the 40% of the population that will vote for Bush tomorrow if given a choice.


They don't care ab the dead soldiers and dead civilians of whichever race in Iraq. They just care to get Bush reelected.



If the whole population in the USA was honest in their assessments ab what all of us are going through, then I would not feel so angry. As it is now, it is just a waste of time to have a conversation that includes everyone in the country.


They believe in Bush as if it was part of their religion. As if he was God or something.


And it infuriates me that this faith and loyalty is very costly and dangerous to the country and world


And because they are so many, it angers me b/c it scares me that action against the injustices of the administration are futile.


.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Entente Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. In conclusion
Edited on Wed Nov-12-03 02:04 AM by Entente
What angers me the most is that at this horrible time in our lives and history, americans are not united but totally divided b/c half the population has an agenda and it's not being honest.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #45
53. Hi Entente!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Entente Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #53
62. Hi NYer
Thanks for the welcome!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 02:08 AM
Response to Original message
46. If they steal the next election then they'll know what real Anger is!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
48. Sorry, no love lost for FReepers
I used to think that "conservatives" were narrow-minded, short-sighted, self-centered, paranoid, mean-spirited, and just plain wrong about virtually every public policy issue. After discovering FreeRepublic.com, I no longer hold them in such high regard.

But seriously, FreeRepublic.com really is a vermin-infested cesspool. After reading some of the irrationally hateful crap that's routinely posted there, I have absolutely no apologies for saying that. About the nicest thing you can say is that most of them are just blowhards and cyber-brownshirts looking for a pat on the back for spewing anti-liberal venom. But I do believe at least some of them are seriously evil to the bone.

However, I do try to remember (or convince myself) that FreeRepublic.com is just a nasty little self-selected subset of all "conservatives." I'm sure (I think) that there are some decent "conservatives" out there, but by definition, they aren't wallowing in that FreeRepublic.com filth.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
52. how many times can you kick a dog before it snarls?
there is a quantum difference between the anger from the right and that from liberals.

i dont see liberals calling for the mass deportation or execution of right wing "traitors" like i see and hear coming from the right about us.

i never heard of a liberal keying someone's car because it had a bush sticker on it, or a right winger be nearly driven off the road because it had a confederate flag like some liberals have had happen to them because they had a "no more war" sticker.

you want something to think about?

most liberals have no problem with opposing views, but when they are couched in threats of physical violence against them, they should respond in anger.

i refuse to be assimilated by the Borg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
54. We SHOULD be angry!
I have been pissed since the shrub stole the 2000 election and will remaim PISSED until his ass is evicted from Al Gore's White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapislzi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
55. I thought after 3 years my anger might have cooled
...instead, it's growing. Every day I look around me and feel more marginalized, more disenfranchised, and I see fewer people who even pretend to give a shit.

I have given up discussing issues with most people. I can't bear to hear regurgitations of Fox New propaganda any more. I can't bear to hear the sound bytes repeated ad nauseum. I can no longer deal with the "sure Bush sucks but at least he's not porking an intern" mindset.

So I've decided that it must be me...me with the problem...but the anger's not going away anytime soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV1Ltimm Donating Member (831 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
57. at least we have a legitimate reason for being angry.
The president, who belongs to the opposition, completely fabricated claims of eminent danger to lure us into a war that has led to the deaths of 400 of our soldiers and untold thousands of civilians.

why are the freepers so butt-hurt? I don't see one reason for them to be so pissed off at us. Didn't they get what they wanted? Our last president lied in front of a grand jury and got impeached, yet they claim that he got away with everything and got a free pass from the "liberal media".

They claim that we are such a detriment to society because we want to protect civil rights, the enviroment and our fellow man. But they'd be all about us if we stood for executing everyone found guilty of a crime immediately after the trial, cutting down every tree in oregon and filling the rivers with chemical run-off just to make a quick buck, or if we cut off the people who needed welfare or unemployment so they could fend for themselves.

I'd say our anger is justified, while their anger is quite absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nannygoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
60. I'm not sure what other response to have...
-to a coup that installed a complete and utter evil moron and his cabal
-to a misadministration that, at the very least, allowed 9/11 to happen and has blocked every investigation into what really happened so that we can make sure it doesn't happen again
-to a misadministration that helped rob millions of Californians through obscenely high electricity rates
-to a misadministration that seeks to pollute our land, air and water in its rollback of minimal environmental protections
-to a misadministration that is robbing our treasury blind, indebting our children and grandchildren, and trying to bankrupt social programs in existence since the new deal
-to a misadministration that started a war based on lies and deceit and which has killed thousands of innocent Afghanis and Iraqis not to mention our soldiers
-to a bunch of hypocrites and thugs who paint their opposition as traitors and un-American

Need I go on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
61. There's not enough anger
in the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
63. Yes. Too many of us have too much anger
Anger clouds reason. An angry person is a weak person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomKoolzip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
65. Anger is not always justified...
But in this case it is the only acceptable reaction. You can only be kicked in the balls so many times by a bully before you start wanting to say something other than "thank you sir, may I have another?" Evn if you lose your dignity in saying it.

Remember GOPAC? Remember Gingrich's "COntract on America?" Remember what they did to Clinton? Remember finding out about the Carlyle Group for the first time? Halliburton? The Dixie Chicks? War has been declared on us, pal, believe it. We're gonna hafta fight back if we want to survive. Even if it costs us our dignity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
66. I certainly do
Edited on Wed Nov-12-03 12:47 PM by silverlib
An I've been working hard to change the way I present my views. I work hard to make my views "embraceable." It is very difficult and I struggle with it daily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-03 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
68. If you are NOT angery, then you are not paying attention.
eom

_|_ to Bush*

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC