Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Rich is not totally without intellect or learning -- but what he does with them gives me the same reaction, to a milder degree, that I had on listening to Mario Cuomo's long-defunct radio talk show: How does someone of that obvious intelligence stay so wrong?

I seem to recall encountering a "RichLevy" in AOL Chat back when I haunted those chatrooms. I wasn't impressed then, either.

Summing up, the man's not clinically insane, and he doesn't seem grossly immature like tw, but I'm not seeing deep wisdom there either. Guys who aren't pro-gun (thus antigenocide in the real way) generally aren't blessed with wisdom.

Gee, thanks. BTW, my AOL chat is not RichLevy and I never really used the ID I did have. I am also sure that whoever this RichLevy in AOL was, he probably formed an equally interesting opinion of you.

I think the major difference in us is that as a liberal, I actually try to see your point. I make a concious effort to do so. In fact, sometimes the feeling I get trying to follow your logic is a lot like the one I get when I really have to take a crap and spend the first minute passing a huge log. It's uncomfortable as heck, but I know that the effort is important and that getting past it will allow me to get on with other things.

Still, as a liberal I have to consider your opinion, so I do. As a conservative, you have the advantage of being able to be true to your principles by deliberately not considering any other point of view.

BTW, I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun, anymore than I am anti-car by agreeing that people should have drivers licenses before commanding the ability to cause a catastrophe.

As for my sanity, you can probably ask Wolf. She has seen me in person enough times to probably make a clinical observation. Since this has never resulted in my making her acquaintence in a professional capacity, I must have met at least some minimal standard of sanity.

Maybe you should meet her. Just make sure she has time to pack the long sleeves 'just in case'.

[tw]

From ABC News of 1 Jun 2006:

DOJ Officials Will Testify Says Judge
In a new twist, a federal judge in Washington today ordered that senior DOJ officials, including Associate AG Robert McCallum, be deposed in a lawsuit seeking information about why the department drastically reduced the amount of damages it was seeking in a suit against the big tobacco companies.

Last June, following a lengthy trial, DOJ officials announced they were cutting the amount of damages they were seeking from tobacco companies, from $130 billion to $14 billion.

That decision prompted the lead attorney in the government's case, Sharon Eubanks, to quit saying that Bush political appointees undercut the government's case against big tobacco.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by richlevy

SNIP~As for my sanity, you can probably ask Wolf. She has seen me in person enough times to probably make a clinical observation. Since this has never resulted in my making her acquaintence in a professional capacity, I must have met at least some minimal standard of sanity.

Be honest, Rich....you don't live in her jurisdiction.

[tw]

When did the US decide an attack on Iran was not possible? The Economist suggest that German Chancellor Angela Merkel may have finally persuaded George Jr to stop his attacks on Iran; to actually solve the problem without military conflict. This may have averted (or delayed) an American 'Pearl Harboring' of Iran. Interesting insight from the Washington Post of 4 Jun 2006:

Rice Key to Reversal on Iran
At the end of March, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to Europe and had unusual, one-on-one conversations with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. She also attended a meeting in Berlin on Iran at which the Russian and Chinese representatives denounced the idea of sanctions to halt Tehran's drive toward a nuclear weapon.

Rice returned to Washington with a sobering message: The international effort to derail Iran's programs was falling apart. Her conclusion spurred a secret discussion among Rice, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley: Should the United States finally agree to join the Europeans at the negotiations with Iran?

Some are still asking if this new policy is simply an attempt to win back momentum by requiring Iran to meet unilateral preconditions before any talks can occur. Did the Washington Post get it right or is the Washington Post being uses as part of a new anti-Iran campaign?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by tw

When did the US decide an attack on Iran was not possible? The Economist suggest that German Chancellor Angela Merkel may have finally persuaded George Jr to stop his attacks on Iran;

I think what persuaded him was the idea that to support a war in 3 countries would mean reinstating the draft, which would have finally brought the cost of war home to the American people.

It's easier to be an armchair patriot when your kids are safe at home.

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I think what persuaded him was the idea that to support a war in 3 countries would mean reinstating the draft, which would have finally brought the cost of war home to the American people.

There appears to be other factors that recently changed George Jr's attitude. We heard it in comments about learning humility. Forgot the exact text, but he almost apologized for the "Bring it on" statement and then moved on to express how he needed to become more mature.

But I think there are some other factors here. Some of Cheney's responses lately may be put him at loggerhead with Karl Rove. George Jr may not be taking orders from Cheney anymore. I also got a very distinct impression that Laura laid into him about his cowboy attitudes. I think maybe his low popularity ratings finally got Laura to tell George off - to get him to take stock of his attitude.

And finally, I believe Condi Rice is getting educated by State Department veterans and world leaders. This too would be influencing how George Jr reacts. Condi is saying things she would have never said three and four years ago.

Of course underlying all this are the lowest popularity polls in recent history. It's hard to believe that Richard Nixon all but openly tried to pervert this nation's government and still did not have such low numbers. Apparently that may have finally caused George Jr to take a realistic world perspective.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Okay, to exhaust this part of the topic:

Originally Posted by richlevy

Gee, thanks. BTW, my AOL chat is not RichLevy and I never really used the ID I did have. I am also sure that whoever this RichLevy in AOL was. . .

I suppose the coincidence would simply have been too much.

Still, as a liberal I have to consider your opinion, so I do. As a conservative, you have the advantage of being able to be true to your principles by deliberately not considering any other point of view.

This is not well thought out. What is here instead is an expression of prejudice -- your unjustified belief that conservatives must somehow never be intellectuals. Commentary, The World Jewish Review, and National Review all demonstrate just how unjustified that view is, monthly or quarterly.

Now there is the situation that in this forum what is written and read is the end product of years if not lifetimes of thought, and not the process or the development; you don't see any of the points at which a given idea was weighed and then accepted or rejected. This produces spaces between positions and philosophies, and some careless accusations of closedmindedness get thrown around, sometimes rightly, sometimes not.

BTW, I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun, anymore than I am anti-car by agreeing that people should have drivers licenses before commanding the ability to cause a catastrophe.

Tolerable, but less strongly anticrime or antigenocide than my approach to it.

As for my sanity, you can probably ask Wolf. . . Since this has never resulted in my making her acquaint[a]nce in a professional capacity, I must have met at least some minimal standard of sanity.

Well, yeah, you have -- I can tell as much by reading your posts, you know. I really don't think I'd have to check with Wolf. Wolf likes me, btw.

Maybe you should meet her. Just make sure she has time to pack the long sleeves 'just in case'.

Hee hee hee -- I'm a good sport. :p

WOLF likes YOU? I know Wolf is a right winger, but give me a break! So are you two going steady?

UG, its not worth my time to answer your hysterical posts with well thought out replies. The last time I did that, you ran and cowered in the woodwork for weeks until the thread was long cold. Big waste of time.

Congrats on your engagement with Wolf, the poor girl.

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by marichiko

UG, its not worth my time to answer your hysterical posts with well thought out replies. The last time I did that, you ran and cowered in the woodwork for weeks until the thread was long cold. Big waste of time.

Speaking of, are you planning on stopping by this thread anytime soon, UG? I believe you owe someone an apology. Or at least a blustering, handwaving dismissal.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

This is not well thought out. What is here instead is an expression of prejudice -- your unjustified belief that conservatives must somehow never be intellectuals. Commentary, The World Jewish Review, and National Review all demonstrate just how unjustified that view is, monthly or quarterly.

I didn't make any claims about intelligence, just about open-mindedness. There are perfectly rational intellectuals who believe that the world is less than 6000 years old.