Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Timber,

I'm confident that, before long, someone will rescue us from that condition.

geroge ob1- You know that I usually agree with your posts. ( I knew you had to have a good background- Jesuit Education, In my opinion, can't be beat) but I must respecfully tell you that I think you are being just a bit simplistic in your statement that we adopt political positions either in opposition or in agreement with those of our parents. First, of all, what would you call a centrist with a Marxist father and a mother who is a devotee of Ayn Rand?

Would that be someone in opposition to or in congruence with their parents's political beliefs?

Secondly, a good amount of recent Social Science, such as the Pultizer Prize nominated book by Harris-The Nurture Assumption- makes a very strong case for the fact that Parents influence on their children has been greatly overrated and that the peer group is far more important than people realize.

I must express my astonishment at the article provided by Professor Hobibit. I have read some Jeremiads lately but, in my opinion, Mr. Morford's was over the top.

I was curious about the writer's background.

Mr. Morford is a part time writer for San Francisco Gate( surely, a powerhouse publication)

Mr. Morford's web site reveals him to be a fiction writer," a former LA rock-God wannabe" and a "funky prurient neo-pagan gleaner of sensory delicious naked"

But, Timber, we can all enjoy the warmth while it lasts.

And thank you, Sofia for looking out for my best interests about the "ignorant bitch" thing. It was very funny and obviously I took it that way. george is guilty of providing us with some excellent and much needed comic relief. Now I hope we can build on our ability to discuss matters with civility as demonstrated by our ability to laugh together.

And I agree with all that you said, george (including that you like my style and independence) about being influenced by our past experience, as Blatham suggested. But as I see it, it all still amounts to who do you believe or disbelieve. For whatever reason. I still have the idea (rightly or wrongly) that some of you (especially those of you who have had positive religious experiences) do not understand the grave danger we're in at the moment. I can understand being a capitalist and wanting more freedom from secular humanist fanaticism. If only these things could work out by depending on the good will of the people involved. But they can't as we've seen so clearly demonstrated on these threads. Most of us like the sense of co-operation necessary to have a real discussion in which everyone learns something. But there are always those who will abuse freedom and must be regulated. So that's the way I think of the separation of church and state, as I view our other civil rights as well. They have to be protected, unfortunately by the laws of the land.

There are people in power now that you should fear. And I don't think that's a paranoid idea, although it may sound that way to you. I'm going to start a thread in which I hope we can work together to trace back and look for how this all started. I will maintain that those in power now are not interested in democracy first. They are rather interested in coercion in order to bolster and protect their own shaky foundations. Let's not call it a right wing conspiracy. Let's call it a fanatical right wing plan that has been in operation for some time now and is, because of ignorance or something on the part of the American people going largely unnoticed and unchallenged.

I'm more of a capitalist and a moderate, I think, than many of my fellow liberal thinkers here. I think we should put our other values aside at this time and deal with the reality that the Republican party and our country has been captured by this minority of people who are now running our government and affecting the well being of the entire world. That's my take on it. You guys don't know these people like I do. But you don't have to just take my word for it. Because I think we can look into this subject and do our research. I'm working on the beginnings of the thread.......and I'll let it be known when it's ready. And of course, I welcome opposing opinions.

I have a friend with whom I discuss psychoanalytic theory and technique. He often takes the opposing view (because he knows those views and can speak from that perspective.) I've learned more from this format than any class or supervision I've ever had. I wish we could aim for this goal. It's a magnificent way to learn.

"errate"

That last line should have been-"A funky prurient neo-pagan gleaner of sensory delicious NUANCES"

Well!

Further research led me to find an another left coast denizen named Ted Rall( who has also exhibited far left proclivites in the quotes of Rall made on these sites) has an article entitled- Mark Morford wants my love child-

What's going on here?

Are these serious writers or are they from the San Francisco Asylum?

Not sure if you're familiar with Ted Rall's work, Italgato, or genuinely curious, but here's a recent example:

D'Artagnan- Thanks for the info on Rall,

Now, do you have any idea why hewrote--
"Mark Morford wants me love child"

Lola says there are people now in power you should fear. I don't fear anyone in power now-not at all. But I was fearful.

My daughter went to a Clinton rally in 1996. I must be forgiven for saying that my daughter was and is extremely beautiful. I was fearful that she would get within arm's reach of the alleged rapist, known sexual harrasser and bimbo lover, Bill Clinton.

That's who I feared. I fear no one now.

Maybe Lola should go into Psychoanalysis( and here, I thought that Freudian Psychoanalysis had been descredited) to cure her groundless "angst" with regard to present day politicians.

Case closed

Why would you fear your 'extremely beautiful' daughter would be in danger from a 'bimbo lover'?

Surely you're not calling your daughter a bimbo...are you?

You must be mistaken about something here (and it really doesn't matter to me which)...

You mean you don't know that the White House Staff included a woman who was hired just to look out for the Bimbo attacks on Clinton.

Of course, the Clintons called everyone who yelled sexual harrassment, Bimbos.

It was simple. If you allowed Clinton to harrass you and you didn't complain, you were ok.

If you complained, as Juanita Broadderick did, you were a Bimbo.

So is your daughter a bimbo or not?

Bimboness is irrelevant; the operative sunjective judgement here is beautiful. I can't recall a Recent Presidential Doxie that met that qualification.

why do you guys even talk to massagato?

Now, now..Monica is sort of cute in that chubby low self esteem sort of way. I would have done her in my Fratboy days, after a lot of beer, in a really dark room, in another state, where none of my friends were likely to find out...
I'll bet she makes really neat cow sounds...nevermind...

I don't know about that; I wouldn't have kicked Gennifer Flowers outta bed for eatin' crackers...

Marilyn Monroe was pretty hot, too.

Now that secretary Bush the Elder was hittin'...that bitch was ugly.

At this moment I am reminded of your "putting peanut butter on the dog's nose" analogy...

This dog can't hunt

Timber, I must regretfully disagree with you. Gennifer Flowers is beautiful. I saw her in the flesh in the New Orleans Club. She is radiant.

The reason, I believe, that we have not heard more from the media about Gennifer's beauty is that the media is uncomfortable about Gennifer's claim that Clinton consumed large quanties of Cocaine in her presence and that he urged her to try some.

The media was antsy about her claim that the affair was of over five years duration instead of the one night stand claimed by Clinton.

The media turned a blind eye to the tape offered by Flowers in which when she told Clinton she lied in a government hearing, as he had counseled her to do, Clinton said:

"Good for you"

That is why the media hasn't enshrined Flowers as a beautiful lady. She is, Timber--she is.