1
   

A new low...even for liberal anti-war protesters

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 07:39 am
dlowan wrote:
I have no need to "come to her defence in substance".

It behoves you slimers to attack her with something of substance.

As I have repeatedly said, if you attack her with reasoned debate and substance, I have no problem.

It is the nature of the attack that I react to.


lol. We "attack" her with her own words.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 07:39 am
dlowan wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Not sure that they are targeting anything so substantial as skeletons.


Like - they rave on about white supremacist associations - while seemingly passing over stuff like she thinks she is channeling her son (if she does - it was a throwaway thing Tico said.)


What is your point by saying this? Do you think we should focus on the fact she thinks she is channeling her son? Why do you think that is more important? Is it more important that focusing on her anti-Israel remarks?


She has a perfect right to criticise Israel and your government's foreign policy.


And I have a perfect right to criticize her for it. Or don't I?


Quote:
You appear to think that criticising either is treason, or some such nonsense.


As prone as you are to assigning other's thoughts and beliefs to people, I've no doubt that you really believe I think she is guilty of treason, even though I've never said any such thing, nor do I believe it.

Quote:
We disagree so fundamentally and utterly on this that there is no crossing the abyss. So be it.


Yes, so be it.

Quote:
I think her sanity is quite important, given that the media is giving her such a stage for the time - and believing that she is channeling her son (if that is true) gives me some cause to doubt her mental state.


I've been doubting it for some time now. Nice to see you coming around.

Quote:
Although, even that is a matter of debate - since I understand numbers of otherwise sane people believe in the same thing - just as lots of folk believe in the invisible friends they call gods, and few call them nuts. It is simply a matter that I consider relevant in looking at the nature of her movement. I have no idea how relevant, cos I am not following it that closely.


You're too busy criticizing the people criticizing her?

Quote:
I hope she has, at least, stirred the sluggish streams of thought in those Americans who believe everything that Bush and Fox tell them.


Vicente Fox, the President of Mexico?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 07:39 am
dlowan wrote:
Anyhoo, speaking professionally, it is actually not extremely unusual for people in grief to believe they can see/hear their loved one - and one does not question their mental state as much at that time as one otherwise might.

Shrugs.


Perhaps not. Except, of course, when one has grabbed the national spotlight and is claiming moral authority in an effort to sway public opinion to the anti-war movement. If she wants to go home to California away from the glare of the media because her mental state is too frail, she should do so.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 07:42 am
goodfielder wrote:
I think anyone who believes in life after death is weird.

But they have a right to think that, doesn't hurt me so I'm not fussed.

Someone can believe they are chanelling someone, doesn't fuss me - though I think it is weird. But then I don't believe prayer does anything either. I think it's sort of strange but it can't hurt.

But I don't think that believing in an afterlife or prayer or being able to channel someone is really bad. I just think it's silly.

But you can hold those beliefs should you wish.

You can also hold other beliefs which don't conflict, such as the Iraq invasion and occupation was all about oil. I am likely to agree with you.
I would think you were still weird about channelling or prayer though.

But I wouldn't hold it against you.


I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn she doesn't really think she's channelling her son, but is only saying what she thinks will further her cause.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 07:45 am
Ok...I need source material here. Tico - where did you see some transcripts or accounts of what this lady has said? Dependable, please.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:01 am
Did Tico say earlier, he heard her personally?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:08 am
I heard that he channeled a dead nazi who told him she was a jew hater. It might not be true, but you know, it is possible. Not that I'm actually saying that, you understand...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:09 am
You mean "it might not be true but I think it is true".
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:13 am
Perhaps it's not true be definition but certainly in his view.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:17 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Did Tico say earlier, he heard her personally?


No. It appears you were hearing voices in your head again, Walter.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:17 am
kickycan wrote:
I heard that he channeled a dead nazi who told him she was a jew hater. It might not be true, but you know, it is possible. Not that I'm actually saying that, you understand...


I see your providing your usual level of contribution to a poltical thread, Kicky.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:20 am
FreeDuck wrote:
You mean "it might not be true but I think it is true".


Thought you weren't piling on FD?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:21 am
blatham wrote:
Ok...I need source material here. Tico - where did you see some transcripts or accounts of what this lady has said? Dependable, please.


blatham: Most of your research material has been provided earlier in about 3-4 different threads. I doubt you will find much to be "dependable," since it appears you rely on salon.com, E&P, New York Review of Books, NYT, USA Today, New Yorker, Boston Globe, WaPo, the rest of the MSM, and precious little else. ( Wink ) MSM hasn't carried much of what she's said.

Look at what Hitchens has said ... HERE and HERE.

Read the transcript of her speech at the April 27, 2005, Lynne Stewart rally in San Francisco ... HERE.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:28 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Did Tico say earlier, he heard her personally?


No. It appears you were hearing voices in your head again, Walter.


I regard your response not only as a lie but as a heavy insult as well.

Quote:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3738/ticolied4jo.jpg
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:37 am
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
You mean "it might not be true but I think it is true".


Thought you weren't piling on FD?


Oh right. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:38 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Did Tico say earlier, he heard her personally?


No. It appears you were hearing voices in your head again, Walter.


I regard your response not only as a lie but as a heavy insult as well.

Quote:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3738/ticolied4jo.jpg


Fine. I regard your comment as either a lack of communication or comprehension on your part. I have heard the lady speak on the television, as has anyone else in the US (and probably the world) with access to a television set. I never said I heard her in person, which is precisely what you meant by "personally," -- why else would you question my claiming to have heard her? I have also read transcripts of her speeches, and read communications she's written.

So you may regard it as a lie if you wish. You may also regard it as a heavy insult as well, if you choose. I do not care.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:41 am
Oh, and blatham ... there is also a video montage you can download .... HERE.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:42 am
Quote:
Main Entry: per·son·al·ly Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: -s()nl, -li
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from personal + -ly
: so as to be personal : in a personal manner; often : as oneself : on or for one's own part <personally I don't want to go>


source: "personally." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (30 Aug. 2005).
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 08:53 am
"I've heard her speak." - Ticomaya, Monday, August 29, 2005.

Dictionary.com wrote:
I
pron.

Used to refer to oneself as speaker or writer.


Dictionary.com wrote:
have
v. had, (hd) hav·ing, has (hz)
v. tr.

1.
1. To be in possession of: already had a car.
2. To possess as a characteristic, quality, or function: has a beard; had a great deal of energy.
3. To possess or contain as a constituent part: a car that has air bags.
2. To occupy a particular relation to: had many disciples.
3. To possess knowledge of or facility in: has very little Spanish.
4. To hold in the mind; entertain: had doubts about their loyalty.
5. To use or exhibit in action: have compassion.
6.
1. To come into possession of; acquire: Not one copy of the book was to be had in the entire town.
2. To receive; get: I had a letter from my cousin.
3. To accept; take: I'll have the peas instead of the spinach.
7.
1. To suffer from: have defective vision.
2. To be subject to the experience of: had a difficult time last winter.
8.
1. To cause to do something, as by persuasion or compulsion: had my assistant run the errand.
2. To cause to be in a specified place or state: had the guests in the dining room; had everyone fascinated.
9. To permit; allow: I won't have that kind of behavior in my house.
10. To carry on, perform, or execute: have an argument.
11.
1. To place at a disadvantage: Your opponent in the debate had you on every issue.
2. Informal. To get the better of, especially by trickery or deception: They realized too late that they'd been had by a swindler.
3. Informal. To influence by dishonest means; bribe: an incorruptible official who could not be had.
12.
1. To procreate (offspring): wanted to have a child.
2. To give birth to; bear: She's going to have a baby.
13. To partake of: have lunch.
14. To be obliged to; must: We simply have to get there on time.
15. To engage in sexual intercourse with.


Dictionary.com wrote:
heard

adj : detected or perceived by the sense of hearing; "a conversation heard through the wall"


Dictionary.com wrote:
her
adj. The possessive form of she.

Used as a modifier before a noun: her boots; her accomplishments.


pron. The objective case of she.

1. Used as the direct object of a verb: They saw her at the conference.
2. Used as the indirect object of a verb: They gave her a round of applause.
3. Used as the object of a preposition: This letter is addressed to her.
4. Informal. Used as a predicate nominative: It's her.
5. Nonstandard. Used reflexively as the indirect object of a verb: She got her a new job. See note at me.


Dictionary.com wrote:
speak
v. spoke, (spk) spo·ken, (spkn) speak·ing, speaks
v. intr.

1. To utter words or articulate sounds with ordinary speech modulation; talk.
2.
1. To convey thoughts, opinions, or emotions orally.
2. To express oneself.
3. To be on speaking terms: They are no longer speaking.
3. To deliver an address or lecture: The mayor spoke at the rally.
4.
1. To make a statement in writing: The biography speaks of great loneliness.
2. To act as spokesperson: spoke for the entire staff.
5.
1. To convey a message by nonverbal means: Actions speak louder than words.
2. To be expressive: spoke with her eyes.
3. To be appealing: His poetry speaks to one's heart.
6. To make a reservation or request. Often used with for: Is this dance spoken for? I spoke for the last slice of pizza.
7.
1. To produce a characteristic sound: The drums spoke.
2. To give off a sound on firing. Used of guns or cannon.
8. To make communicative sounds.
9. To give an indication or a suggestion: His manners spoke of good upbringing.



source: http://www.dictionary.com (Aug. 30, 2005)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Aug, 2005 09:04 am
You are correct: I'm hearing voices.

Just another question: you said, I hear them again.

When did you observe that the other time(s)?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/04/2024 at 05:55:01