Linda W
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2006
- Messages
- 10,630
Goodbye letter to the President.
- Thread starter Ellen
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
starsapphire
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 471
beebrisk
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,000
Date: 12/9/2008 7:04:44 PM
Author: stone_seeker
I say its rubbish because if I were to post some random article (an opinion piece no less) found on the internet from some lunatic who doesnt like Obama, the thread would be 40 pages long bashing me.
You ain''t kidding!
And can someone PLEASE tell me how the writer justifies his claim of Bush''s "desperate sexual insecurity"??
I mean, c''mon! It''s laughable.
beebrisk
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,000
Date: 12/9/2008 7:42:02 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
most of the members here are too young to remember Carter. inflation anyone?Date: 12/9/2008 5:19:02 PM
Author: HollyS
Gee. We could have issued the same kind of ''kick in the pants'' bootin'' out of office to Carter. Oh, we did.
"Misery Index" anyone??
starsapphire
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 471
I think Keith Olberman is the "Worst Person in the World!!!!!!!!!!" and, has telltale signs of "desperate sexual insecurity".......Date: 12/9/2008 7:50:55 PM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 12/9/2008 7:04:44 PM
Author: stone_seeker
I say its rubbish because if I were to post some random article (an opinion piece no less) found on the internet from some lunatic who doesnt like Obama, the thread would be 40 pages long bashing me.
You ain''t kidding!
And can someone PLEASE tell me how the writer justifies his claim of Bush''s ''desperate sexual insecurity''??
I mean, c''mon! It''s laughable.
beebrisk
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,000
Date: 12/9/2008 7:54:26 PM
Author: starsapphire
Date: 12/9/2008 7:50:55 PM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 12/9/2008 7:04:44 PM
Author: stone_seeker
I say its rubbish because if I were to post some random article (an opinion piece no less) found on the internet from some lunatic who doesnt like Obama, the thread would be 40 pages long bashing me.
You ain''t kidding!
And can someone PLEASE tell me how the writer justifies his claim of Bush''s ''desperate sexual insecurity''??
I mean, c''mon! It''s laughable.
I think Keith Olberman is the ''Worst Person in the World!!!!!!!!!!'' and, has telltale signs of ''desperate sexual insecurity''.......
[/i]Now that''s funny!
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
Still waiting for a Republican response with a few facts...but I''m not holding my breath-because I''d die! (I''m betting that a few of you may be upset about that decision!
)
It''s so interesting to me that Obama supporters are supposedly the sheep, yet Bush supporters can''t say a bad word about him or his entire presidency...and Bush has screwed up so much stuff it''s not even funny anymore.
It''s so interesting to me that Obama supporters are supposedly the sheep, yet Bush supporters can''t say a bad word about him or his entire presidency...and Bush has screwed up so much stuff it''s not even funny anymore.
beebrisk
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,000
Date: 12/9/2008 8:06:49 PM
Author: thing2of2
Still waiting for a Republican response with a few facts...but I''m not holding my breath-because I''d die! (I''m betting that a few of you may be upset about that decision!)
It''s so interesting to me that Obama supporters are supposedly the sheep, yet Bush supporters can''t say a bad word about him or his entire presidency...and Bush has screwed up so much stuff it''s not even funny anymore.
Interesting, because the writer of that letter didn''t mention a single "fact". Unless of course he''s correct in his assertion that GWB was driven to war by his "desperate sexual insecurity".
Actually, I think I might die waiting to see him furnish the "facts" to back up that claim!
bee*
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 14, 2006
- Messages
- 12,169
What I don''t get and correct me if I''m wrong as I don''t live in the US, but wasn''t the reason for the Iraq war that there were weapons of mass destruction. And if I can remember (been studying all day and too tired to look it up) they then came out and said that there were none. Why do people support him if he''s lied? I know that all politicians lie a bit, but this is a huge one! As an outsider, it baffles me that he can still have support. I''m not posting this to get an argument going, but I really would love to hear how people can support him after that, and I mean I genuinely would love to hear why.
starsapphire
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 471
bee*
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 14, 2006
- Messages
- 12,169
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
Date: 12/9/2008 8:25:30 PM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 12/9/2008 8:06:49 PM
Author: thing2of2
Still waiting for a Republican response with a few facts...but I''m not holding my breath-because I''d die! (I''m betting that a few of you may be upset about that decision!)
It''s so interesting to me that Obama supporters are supposedly the sheep, yet Bush supporters can''t say a bad word about him or his entire presidency...and Bush has screwed up so much stuff it''s not even funny anymore.
Interesting, because the writer of that letter didn''t mention a single ''fact''. Unless of course he''s correct in his assertion that GWB was driven to war by his ''desperate sexual insecurity''.
Actually, I think I might die waiting to see him furnish the ''facts'' to back up that claim!
Mmkay, if you insist, I''m totally down with playing make believe. Let''s pretend there aren''t several links to newspaper articles and the actual White House website to back up many of the statements in the letter.
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Well, since "facts" to the Bush supporters on this thread amount to "every criticism is a load of crap", "they''re ganging up on us again", and fixations on the letter writer''s admittedly over-the-top hyperbole speculating about Bush''s sexuality, rather than the legitimate concerns stated repeatedly by many of the posters here, I''ll post a few more interesting bits.
The full link to this 34 page document is here. It addresses many of the concerns voiced here. I found it by accident while attempting to find the texts of several of Bush''s signing statements, which I have found and read before, (I apparently forgot that The American Presidency Project has the links). They are, as has been said, along the lines of "The law is a law but not when I decide I don''t think I should have to follow it". That pretty much covers it. Again, like a litany, I repeat that, in spite of massive denial and knee-jerk circling of wagons on the part of Bush-is-so-misunderstood supporters, the concerns of many are NOT imaginary, they are NOT crap nor are they based on paranoid imaginings, and they are NOT going to go away. Period.
K
This resolution does not represent the policy of the American Bar Association until it shall have
been approved by the House of Delegates. Informational reports, comments and supporting data are
not approved by the House in its voting and represent only the views of the submitting entity.
(I learned at The American Presidency Project, that this document was approved, and they had a link to the document without the paragraph above. K)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
TASK FORCE ON PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS
AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE
RECOMMENDATION
RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress;
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the President, if he believes that any provision of a bill pending before Congress would be unconstitutional if enacted, to communicate such concerns to Congress prior to passage;
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the President to
confine any signing statements to his views regarding the meaning, purpose and significance of bills presented by Congress, and if he believes that all or part of a bill is unconstitutional, to veto the bill in accordance with Article I, § 7 of the Constitution of the United States, which directs him to approve or disapprove each bill in its entirety;
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements he issues, and in any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, to submit to Congress a report setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for the statement; and further requiring that all such submissions be available in a publicly accessible database; and
REPORT
The preservation of liberty requires that
the three great departments of power
should be separate and distinct.
– James Madison, Federalist Papers, No. 47.
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 30, 2006, Charlie Savage, a respected veteran reporter for the Boston Globe, wrote a lengthy article on the use of presidential “signing statements” in which he reported that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.”1 Savage wrote: Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush''s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
At a June 27, 2006 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “Presidential Signing
Statements,”5 Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the Ranking Member, stated:
We are at a pivotal moment in our Nation’s history, where Americans are faced with a President who makes sweeping claims for almost unchecked Executive power. One of the most troubling aspects of such claims is the President’s unprecedented use of signing statements. Historically, these statements have served as public announcements containing comments from the President, on the enactment of laws. But this Administration has taken what was otherwise a press release and transformed it into a proclamation stating which parts of the law the
President will follow and which parts he will simply ignore.
Senator Leahy called the broad use of signing statements “a grave threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances.”6
end excerpt from pages 1-3
From page 5:
Our recommendations are not intended to be, and should not be viewed as, an attack on the current President. His term will come to an end and he will be replaced by another President, who will, in turn, be succeeded by yet another.
To be sure, it was the number and nature of the current President’s signing statements which generated the formation of this Task Force and compelled our recommendations. However, those recommendations are directed not just to the sitting President, but to all Chief Executives
who will follow him, and they are intended to underscore the importance of the doctrine of separation of powers. They therefore represent a call to this President and to all his successors to fully respect the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.
3. The Bush II Era
From the inception of the Republic until 2000, Presidents produced signing statements containing fewer than 600 challenges to the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George W. Bush (Bush II) has produced more than 800.52
Whereas President Clinton on occasion asked for memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel on his authority to challenge or reject controversial provisions in bills presented to him, it is reported that in the Bush II Administration all bills are routed through Vice President Cheney’s office to be searched for perceived threats to the “unitary executive”— the theory that the President has the sole power to control the execution of powers delegated to him in the Constitution and encapsulated in his Commander in Chief powers and in his constitutional mandate to see that “the laws are faithfully executed.”54
Some examples of signing statements in which President Bush has indicated he will not follow the law are: bills banning the use of U.S. troops in combat against rebels in Colombia; bills requiring reports to Congress when money from regular appropriations is diverted to secret operations; two bills forbidding the use in military intelligence of materials “not lawfully collected” in violation of the Fourth Amendment; a post-Abu Ghraib bill mandating new regulations for military prisons in which military lawyers were permitted to advise commanders on the legality of certain kinds of treatment even if the Department of Justice lawyers did not agree; bills requiring the retraining of prison guards in humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions, requiring background checks for civilian contractors in Iraq and banning contractors from performing security, law enforcement, intelligence and criminal justice functions.55
Perhaps the most prominent signing statements which conveyed refusals to carry out laws
involved:
Congressional requirements to report back to Congress on the use of Patriot Act authority
to secretly search homes and seize private papers;56
The McCain amendment forbidding any U.S. officials to use torture or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment on prisoners (the President said in his statement that as Commander
in Chief he could waive any such requirement if necessary to prevent terrorist attacks);
A requirement that government scientists transmit their findings to Congress uncensored,
along with a guarantee that whistleblower employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will not be punished for providing information to Congress about safety issues in the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain
in 57
The full link to this 34 page document is here. It addresses many of the concerns voiced here. I found it by accident while attempting to find the texts of several of Bush''s signing statements, which I have found and read before, (I apparently forgot that The American Presidency Project has the links). They are, as has been said, along the lines of "The law is a law but not when I decide I don''t think I should have to follow it". That pretty much covers it. Again, like a litany, I repeat that, in spite of massive denial and knee-jerk circling of wagons on the part of Bush-is-so-misunderstood supporters, the concerns of many are NOT imaginary, they are NOT crap nor are they based on paranoid imaginings, and they are NOT going to go away. Period.
K
This resolution does not represent the policy of the American Bar Association until it shall have
been approved by the House of Delegates. Informational reports, comments and supporting data are
not approved by the House in its voting and represent only the views of the submitting entity.
(I learned at The American Presidency Project, that this document was approved, and they had a link to the document without the paragraph above. K)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
TASK FORCE ON PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS
AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE
RECOMMENDATION
RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress;
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the President, if he believes that any provision of a bill pending before Congress would be unconstitutional if enacted, to communicate such concerns to Congress prior to passage;
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges the President to
confine any signing statements to his views regarding the meaning, purpose and significance of bills presented by Congress, and if he believes that all or part of a bill is unconstitutional, to veto the bill in accordance with Article I, § 7 of the Constitution of the United States, which directs him to approve or disapprove each bill in its entirety;
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements he issues, and in any instance in which he claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, to submit to Congress a report setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for the statement; and further requiring that all such submissions be available in a publicly accessible database; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges Congress to enact legislation enabling the President, Congress, or other entities or individuals, to seek judicial review, to the extent constitutionally permissible, in any instance in which the President claims the authority, or states the intention, to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, or interprets such a law in a manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress, and urges Congress and the President to support a judicial resolution of the President''s claim or interpretation.
REPORT
The preservation of liberty requires that
the three great departments of power
should be separate and distinct.
– James Madison, Federalist Papers, No. 47.
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 30, 2006, Charlie Savage, a respected veteran reporter for the Boston Globe, wrote a lengthy article on the use of presidential “signing statements” in which he reported that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.”1 Savage wrote: Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush''s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Id. The Savage articles created a major national controversy, with the use – and, as some charged, the abuse – of signing statements drawing both severe critics and staunch defenders, with dozens of newspaper editorials2 and op-ed pieces published.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, charged that congressional legislation “doesn''t amount to anything if the president can say, ''My constitutional authority supersedes the statute.'' And I think we''ve got to lay down the gauntlet and challenge him on it”3 He denounced the President’s use of signing statements as “a very blatant encroachment” on Congress''s power to legislate.4
At a June 27, 2006 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “Presidential Signing
Statements,”5 Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the Ranking Member, stated:
We are at a pivotal moment in our Nation’s history, where Americans are faced with a President who makes sweeping claims for almost unchecked Executive power. One of the most troubling aspects of such claims is the President’s unprecedented use of signing statements. Historically, these statements have served as public announcements containing comments from the President, on the enactment of laws. But this Administration has taken what was otherwise a press release and transformed it into a proclamation stating which parts of the law the
President will follow and which parts he will simply ignore.
Senator Leahy called the broad use of signing statements “a grave threat to our constitutional system of checks and balances.”6
end excerpt from pages 1-3
From page 5:
Our recommendations are not intended to be, and should not be viewed as, an attack on the current President. His term will come to an end and he will be replaced by another President, who will, in turn, be succeeded by yet another.
To be sure, it was the number and nature of the current President’s signing statements which generated the formation of this Task Force and compelled our recommendations. However, those recommendations are directed not just to the sitting President, but to all Chief Executives
who will follow him, and they are intended to underscore the importance of the doctrine of separation of powers. They therefore represent a call to this President and to all his successors to fully respect the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.
From page 14:
3. The Bush II Era
From the inception of the Republic until 2000, Presidents produced signing statements containing fewer than 600 challenges to the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George W. Bush (Bush II) has produced more than 800.52
52 It is important to understand that these numbers refer to the number of challenges to provisions
He asserted constitutional objections to over 500 in his first term: 82 of these related to his theory of the “unitary executive,” 77 to the President’s exclusive power over foreign affairs, 48 to his power to withhold information required by Congress to protect national security, 37 to his Commander in Chief powers.53
Whereas President Clinton on occasion asked for memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel on his authority to challenge or reject controversial provisions in bills presented to him, it is reported that in the Bush II Administration all bills are routed through Vice President Cheney’s office to be searched for perceived threats to the “unitary executive”— the theory that the President has the sole power to control the execution of powers delegated to him in the Constitution and encapsulated in his Commander in Chief powers and in his constitutional mandate to see that “the laws are faithfully executed.”54
Some examples of signing statements in which President Bush has indicated he will not follow the law are: bills banning the use of U.S. troops in combat against rebels in Colombia; bills requiring reports to Congress when money from regular appropriations is diverted to secret operations; two bills forbidding the use in military intelligence of materials “not lawfully collected” in violation of the Fourth Amendment; a post-Abu Ghraib bill mandating new regulations for military prisons in which military lawyers were permitted to advise commanders on the legality of certain kinds of treatment even if the Department of Justice lawyers did not agree; bills requiring the retraining of prison guards in humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions, requiring background checks for civilian contractors in Iraq and banning contractors from performing security, law enforcement, intelligence and criminal justice functions.55
Perhaps the most prominent signing statements which conveyed refusals to carry out laws
involved:
Congressional requirements to report back to Congress on the use of Patriot Act authority
to secretly search homes and seize private papers;56
The McCain amendment forbidding any U.S. officials to use torture or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment on prisoners (the President said in his statement that as Commander
in Chief he could waive any such requirement if necessary to prevent terrorist attacks);
A requirement that government scientists transmit their findings to Congress uncensored,
along with a guarantee that whistleblower employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will not be punished for providing information to Congress about safety issues in the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain
in 57
trillionaire
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,881
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
LMAO! Trill and Thing, you are just crackin'' me up!
Thanks!
I am just a big nerd you know: I read too much. Research too much. Go down odd roads. And pretty much all just for the fun of it. For instance, several years ago, I wondered about why we torture people and ended up with new reference books and being pretty knowledgeable about Stanley Milgram and Phillip Zimbardo. That''s some fascinating stuff too...
Well, I''ll tell my hubby what you guys said. I''m sure he''ll be jealous....If he isn''t I''m gonna smack him!!
I am just a big nerd you know: I read too much. Research too much. Go down odd roads. And pretty much all just for the fun of it. For instance, several years ago, I wondered about why we torture people and ended up with new reference books and being pretty knowledgeable about Stanley Milgram and Phillip Zimbardo. That''s some fascinating stuff too...
Well, I''ll tell my hubby what you guys said. I''m sure he''ll be jealous....If he isn''t I''m gonna smack him!!
beebrisk
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,000
Your argument is not an honest one.
No one here ever said or implied that "every criticism is a load of crap" OR "they''re ganging up on us again". No one is "fixated on the letter writer''s admittedly over the top hyperbole speculating about Bush''s sexuality".
Additionally, the letter didn''t actually contain any "facts" as you state above, so that''s not what got the negative reaction. People reacted to the man''s opinion. Big difference.
Personally, I do think this particular criticism is a load of crap. I do not believe, nor has it been stated here, that every criticism of Bush is a load of crap.
I am also secure enough not to feel that anonymous PSers are "ganging up on me" because my viewpoint is unpopular here. I never said that, I never implied that and I don''t think anyone else did either.
While I am not "fixated" on the writers "hyperbole" regarding Bush/sex, That "over the top" statement said much more about the writer than his subject. Hard for me to find integrity in anything he says after that one. His two-bit psychoanalysis of the president (or anyone for that matter) is of no interest to me and certainly doesn''t bolster his position
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
Date: 12/9/2008 10:36:02 PM
Author: ksinger
LMAO! Trill and Thing, you are just crackin'' me up!Thanks!
I am just a big nerd you know: I read too much. Research too much. Go down odd roads. And pretty much all just for the fun of it. For instance, several years ago, I wondered about why we torture people and ended up with new reference books and being pretty knowledgeable about Stanley Milgram and Phillip Zimbardo. That''s some fascinating stuff too...
Well, I''ll tell my hubby what you guys said. I''m sure he''ll be jealous....If he isn''t I''m gonna smack him!!
And l love the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments! But especially the Milgram experiments...WOW. I learned all about them and saw videos of them in a couple of the classes I took this semester...just got an A in my Social Influence, Compliance and Obedience class, as a matter of fact! Are you familiar with the Asch line experiments? Kind of crazy also, but not as many disturbing implications.
beebrisk
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,000
movie zombie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,879
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,155
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
No, I''m not. Enlighten me.Date: 12/9/2008 11:12:42 PM
Author: thing2of2
Date: 12/9/2008 10:36:02 PM
Author: ksinger
LMAO! Trill and Thing, you are just crackin'' me up!Thanks!
I am just a big nerd you know: I read too much. Research too much. Go down odd roads. And pretty much all just for the fun of it. For instance, several years ago, I wondered about why we torture people and ended up with new reference books and being pretty knowledgeable about Stanley Milgram and Phillip Zimbardo. That''s some fascinating stuff too...
Well, I''ll tell my hubby what you guys said. I''m sure he''ll be jealous....If he isn''t I''m gonna smack him!!
And l love the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments! But especially the Milgram experiments...WOW. I learned all about them and saw videos of them in a couple of the classes I took this semester...just got an A in my Social Influence, Compliance and Obedience class, as a matter of fact! Are you familiar with the Asch line experiments? Kind of crazy also, but not as many disturbing implications.
Zimbardo - Kinda puts the big lie to the idea that the Army had NO IDEA that this could happen...
Did you ever read Zimbardo''s later account of how the experiments got stopped? Interesting. His WIFE stopped them. She came in several days in, saw the insanity and basically grabbed him by the proverbial throat and shoved his face into that "cruel mirror". He fought it at first, then woke from the trance. Shook him to his toenails as I recall....
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
First of all, correction. Shinseki was not fired, he retired in 2003, right after the invasion. Everything else is correct on him, except that part which I learned after posting. His opinion didn''t sit well with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and his influence waned after that. So he retired 3 months after the invasion.
As for this piece, yes, it''s an opinion. Hello! I posted it for those I knew would appreciate it. I didn''t expect everyone to get it, nor like it. However, I did try later to post some articles/facts (as did Karen) that might get some people at least thinking there might be some validity to it. And maybe some out there are, though they''d most likely never admit it, because then they too would fall under the criticism of the opposed. And that''s kinda sad....
Glad some of you appreciated it!
As for this piece, yes, it''s an opinion. Hello! I posted it for those I knew would appreciate it. I didn''t expect everyone to get it, nor like it. However, I did try later to post some articles/facts (as did Karen) that might get some people at least thinking there might be some validity to it. And maybe some out there are, though they''d most likely never admit it, because then they too would fall under the criticism of the opposed. And that''s kinda sad....
Glad some of you appreciated it!
MoonWater
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,158
Date: 12/9/2008 10:21:47 PM
Author: thing2of2
Date: 12/9/2008 9:53:54 PM
Author: trillionaire
Ksinger, you are lucky gay marriage is illegal, because you are so awesome, I''d probably propose!
Hahaha! You''d have to fight me for her, though!
Pardon me ladies, but I do believe I was at the head of the line!
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
After a few blinks, the evil look started coming into his eyes and he just said, "Why don''t you tell them we ALL need to get together and talk about it...."Date: 12/10/2008 8:56:14 AM
Author: MoonWater
Date: 12/9/2008 10:21:47 PM
Author: thing2of2
Date: 12/9/2008 9:53:54 PM
Author: trillionaire
Ksinger, you are lucky gay marriage is illegal, because you are so awesome, I''d probably propose!
Hahaha! You''d have to fight me for her, though!
Pardon me ladies, but I do believe I was at the head of the line!
Men....
iheartscience
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 12,111
Date: 12/10/2008 8:56:14 AM
Author: MoonWater
Date: 12/9/2008 10:21:47 PM
Author: thing2of2
Date: 12/9/2008 9:53:54 PM
Author: trillionaire
Ksinger, you are lucky gay marriage is illegal, because you are so awesome, I''d probably propose!
Hahaha! You''d have to fight me for her, though!
Pardon me ladies, but I do believe I was at the head of the line!
Well you know once they legalize same sex marriage, polygamy will be next on the list, so I suggest that we all get married.
- Status
300x240.png)