Singer Linda Ronstadt Ejected by Las Vegas Casino

[DanaC]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment to a degree tw I think "Emotion has no place in adult thinking." takes it too far. We are not vulcans. We are thinking, feeling creatures. To make decisions and reach conclusions based on no more than an emotional response may be less useful than reaching your decisions or conclusions via a logical and calm thought process, but that doesnt mean any decision opinion or response which has involved emotion is unworthy.

We are emotional animals and we are thinking animals. We can be emotional thinking animals and we can think rationally whilst still experiencing an emotional response....to discount al emotional responses in arguments is to discount passion. Politics and passion go hand in hand ....passionate debate is often the most thought provoking and illuminating

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

You're wrong. The issue with Linda Ronstadt and the Aladdin Casino and the music and fans can be discussed and rehashed WITHOUT blaming George Bush.

what? no purple?!

no indigo?


you've changed it to blue?

[Griff]

We also have to remember that emotion is a short cut based on previous higher order thinking. unless it's the gin talking

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Whilst I agree with your sentiment to a degree tw I think "Emotion has no place in adult thinking." takes it too far. We are not vulcans. We are thinking, feeling creatures. To make decisions and reach conclusions based on no more than an emotional response may be less useful than reaching your decisions or conclusions via a logical and calm thought process, but that doesnt mean any decision opinion or response which has involved emotion is unworthy. ...

From those days of wrestling where a loss was not acceptable - emotion is a powerful tool. I only found out years later that we all became 'strange' the day before a match. Its part of tapping the emotion.

But emotion is only a tool that must be both used and controlled by the logical brain. Once emotion overrides the brain, then we have a minority groups of extremists destroying a night of entertainment in a Linda Rhonstadt concert. Or we have religious extremists blowing up airliners and crashing into buildings. The mentally weak are easiest to use as cannon fodder because they don't understand that emotions must always be secondary to logic. Cannon fodder can exist where men are driven by emotion rather than by logical reasoning (or cannon fodder can exist when men of logic realize the necessity of their task and use emotion in a suicidal (supreme) sacrifice).

In another post, I noted why this administration probably is promoting so many terrorist alerts. Fear. Fear is how a leader stays popular. Fear is why Father Stalin was so popular in the early USSR. Fear is the emotion we must get people to use so they don't think logically.

Once emotion overrided logic, then the world is in trouble or we have lots of troops ready to become cannon fodder. Yes, there always will be those who make good cannon fodder.

You may think we are not Vulcans. True. But the less often we act like Spock, then the more often we have drive by shootings - and other both emotionally inspired and illogical actions.

[lumberjim]

and the less we feel love, joy, glee, happiness, contentment, pride, et friggin cetera.


don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because you don't like negative emotions, like ire, and fear, and rage. you are incomplete if you abandon all emotion.
and that is a blunt, honest fact

[warch]

We also have to remember that emotion is a short cut based on previous higher order thinking.

What the hell is going on there? Freakin' cocktails with Project Zero? (hic hic)

[Griff]

I believe you just picked up todays obscure reference award... nicely played. :thumpsup:

[dar512]

Originally Posted by tw

If you are posting to win friends and influence people, then you are not my friend. I want the facts, blunt and honest.

It was meant has humorous phrasing. If you are not attempting influence or to persuade people to your way of thinking, then why post?

In addition, you contradict yourself. You state that you only want to deal with facts. When, actually, this statement

"Nothing involving the WTC and Pentagon attacks can be discussed without mentioning the 6 Aug 2001 briefing that George Jr apparently did not even read."

is an opinion.

The part that makes it nasty is that you attempt to state your opinion in such a way as to a priori disallow another point of view.

[tw]

Originally Posted by dar512

In addition, you contradict yourself. You state that you only want to deal with facts. When, actually, this statement is an opinion.
Quote:
"Nothing involving the WTC and Pentagon attacks can be discussed without mentioning the 6 Aug 2001 briefing that George Jr apparently did not even read." is an opinion.

The part that makes it nasty is that you attempt to state your opinion in such a way as to a priori disallow another point of view. The part that makes it nasty is that you attempt to state your opinion in such a way as to a priori disallow another point of view.

This post will be long because it cites some of the so many details that say George Jr does very little reading for a president. Numerous sources say this president does very little reading and has very little knowledge of the world. My quote stands as accurate in part because dar512 cannot even challenge it. He assumes the claim is made by someone who reads like George Jr. Some reasons why George Jr apparently does not read:


The statement that Bush apparently (or probably) did not read that August 6th PDB comes from numerous characteristics of how the George Jr administration works AND from his own comment. Had George Jr been reading those 36 Presidential Daily Briefings that warned of what we now call 9/11, then he would have made efforts to thwart such an event. Instead, George Jr described that memo to the 9/11 Commission thus:

The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America.

But the two CIA analysts wrote that PDB warnings of a dangerous, and impending attack.

NY Times of 25 Jul 2004 entitled "Correcting the Record on Sept. 11, in Great Detail"
Two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious. The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.”

The actual text of that briefing says an attack was pending

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

Sounds quite actionable to me - if it was read.
When Clinton received actionable threats, the government was empowered to stop those threats. The 9/11 Commission report notes previous attacks on US Embassies in Uganda, Tirana. In response to attacks on US Embassies in Qatar and Ethiopia, even Gen Shleton of the Joint Chiefs put into place preemptive attacks. Even that attack on LAX was thwarted because the Clinton administration *acted* on these 'historical' warnings.

But instead George Jr read this 6 August briefing and called it only historical in nature? Either he is that mentally incompetent OR he did not really read the briefing.

So now we learn how this president operates. Clinton received and read in detail his PDBs - often with handwritten questions or actions in the margins. Instead George Jr gets Tenent to drive over from the CIA every day at 8 AM to personally tell him the daily briefing. George does not read it. He hears it. Even worse is what George Jr hears. Clinton demonstrated the problem in testimony to the 9/11 Commission on page 199:

In December, Bush met with Clinton for a two-hour, one-on-one discussion of national security and foreign policy challenges. Clinton recalled saying to Bush,“I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda.” Clinton told us that he also said,“One of the great regrets of my presidency is that I didn’t get him [Bin Ladin] for you, because I tried to.” Bush told the Commission that he felt sure President Clinton had mentioned terrorism, but did not remember much being said about al Qaeda. Bush recalled that Clinton had emphasized other issues such as North Korea and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Clinton also had Sandy Berger emphasis those same warnings to Condi Rice because he considered the Al Qaeda threat that serious. Apparently George Jr not only does not read much, but he also hears selectively.

And so we go to Sec of the Treasury Paul O'Neill who notes how George Jr's senior staff briefs this president. The conference on energy, cited in Ron Suskind's book "The Priced of Loyalty" page 147 demonstrates:

So, on March 19, at an hour long meeting in the cabinet room, the President was hearing dark predictions about the economic effects of a looming energy crisis. ... For this President, cabinet meetings and the many midsized to large meetings he attended were carefully scripted. Before most meetings, a cabinet secretary's chief of staff would receive a note from someone on the senior staff of the White House. The note instructed the cabinet secretary when he was supposed to speak , about what, and how long. ... The idea of a cabinet meeting or any significant meeting between the President and his seniormost officials being scripted semmed to kill off the whole purpose of bringing people together. ...
O'Neill was watching Bush closely. He threw out a few general phrases, a few nods, but there was virtually no engagement. These cabinet secretaries had worked for over a month on detailed reports. O'Neill had been made to understand by various colleagues in the White House that the President should not be expected to read reports. In his personal experience, their President didn't even appear to have read the short memos he sent over.

So when I say George Jr apparently did not read the 6 August PDB, I also go farther to suggest that decisions are often made for this President. Apparently, much of what former presidents once read (ie memos from the cabinet secretaries) are instead vetted by George Jr's staff - probably his political staff headed by Karl Rove. They in turn censor what he reads and setup cabinet meetings to tell the president what he is to decide. Sounds much like Potamkin villages for those who read history. For example, EPA Director Christie Whitman was excluded from saying anything about Energy in that meeting. She is the EPA Director - completely involved in Energy decisions. But decisions had already been made as to who could tell Geroge Jr what. Christie's opinion was contrary to what George Jr was to be told.

[continued in next post]

[tw]

[continued discussion on why George Jr apparently does not read much]

A year or so back, after the global warming memo to Bush ended up in Paul Gigot's Wall Street Journal column, O'Neill had ranted to Michele Davis, "I'll be goddamned if I'm going to stop writing memos to the President because some bastard at the White House is trying to leak me into extinction." So he kept writing them. The President might not read what he sent, but, O'Neill felt, "he should have the opportunity to see coherent thoughts on paper."

When I say "without mentioning the 6 Aug 2001 briefing that George Jr apparently did not even read.", then the statement comes from signifcant background on this president. I said "apparently did not even read". We can never know for certain if he read beyond the title of that memo. But then we have something curious. Just after that memo, the President asked Condi Rice about this Al Qaeda threat he had been hearing about. So he asked Condi Rice to find out more about it. As a result, Richard Clarke writes this in his book on page 237:

On September 4 2001, the Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda that I had called for "urgently" on January 25 finally met. In preparation for that meeting, I urged Condi Rice to see the issue cleanly. ... The Principals meeting, when it finally took place, was largely a nonevent. Tenent and I spoke passionately about the urgency and seriousness of the al Qaeda threat. No one disagreed. ...
Rumsfeld, who looked distracted throughout the session, took the Wolfowitz line that there were other terrorist concerns, like Iraq, and whatever we did on this al Qaeda business, we had to deal with the other sources of terrorism.

Of course we have since learned that those other sources of terror did not exist.

After that 4 September meeting, nothing more happened to thwart real world terrorism. Plans for the invasion of Iraq had been ongoing for at least six months. Was George Jr aware of the seriousness of hijacked planes and threats to NYC buildings? When the first plane crashed into the WTC, George Jr was in an elementary school. They told him a small plane had crashed into the WTC. Apparently information in the August 6 PDB was not in his head. He asked nothing about the event or even asked who was taking charge. Chaos reigned at the highest levels as no one even gave the pilots authorization to shoot down airliners nor told those pilots where to go. The pilot that was suppose to be over Washington was 150 miles at sea to defend against cruise missiles. Rumsfeld could not be found because he decided to push stretchers in the Pentagon parking lot. An informed George Jr would have instead asked questions, discovered chaos, and taken charge.

Again, Geroge Jr had ignored sharp warnings from President Clinton, had ignored and done nothing about 36 references to Al Qaeda attacks (whereas Clinton was very actively trying to destroy Al Qaeda), and Geroge Jr even took his briefings verbally (not in writing). Briefings where even the senior staff was told in advance what they should tell the president!

Those involved in counterterrorism were quite alarmed by the summer of 2001 as noted in Richard Clark's book page 235

By late June, Tenet and I were convinced that a major series of attacks was abut to come. "It's my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one," Tenet told me. No one could have been more concerned about the al Qaeda threat than George, but he had been unable over several years to get his agency to find a way to go after the heart of al Qaeda inside Afghanistan.

In the meantime, where is all this written material about the impending terrorism attacks? If it was not a threat from Saddam, then was it being censored? But even Tenent was giving the President written daily briefings. Did George Jr ever read these? Apparently he did not because he called them only historical. He called them historical because he failed to read the details.

Not only do I believe George Jr reads little. I also believe he is told what to decide by his political advisors. Not his technical staff - the cabinet and other key Directors. A political staff decides based upon ideology.

It is well known from many sources that George Jr did not have knowledge of any other nation but Mexico. His entire knowledge of the world comes from an intense 1.5 year training course that started in 1998 when his father introduced him to Condi Rice in Kennebunkport. A team of Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, and other members of the vulcans (neoconservatives) taught George Jr about the world. How can one be that naive? First one must not read very much. *Apparently* he also does not read other information sources.

When I said George Jr apparently did not read that briefing, well yes, it is an opinion. An opinion substantiated by a significant reading and numerous details. Notice over the years how my opinions have changed from saying Bush Jr may be a compassionate conservative to eventually believing this president is as bad a Nixon. It started when the foreign minister of Norway predicted that George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords AND when the first foreign leader to visit George Jr, the Chancellor of Germany, was all but insulted by George Jr. Did you know about those events? If not, then how informative is your reading? Since then, this president has output a chain of ideological half truths - better known as lies. This post is but a very short example of how much I have read about this president. Enough that when I say this president "apparently did not read" the breifing, then it comes from his long history of not reading AND of using ideology as a replacement for hard fact analysis.

My statement stands based upon extensive reading of how George Jr operates, is manipulated, and lies. I did not contradict myself. My adversion to George Jr is based upon his history and just too much published details of what has been ongoing in this White House. This includes an outright denial that Al Qaeda was a threat AND attempts to blame 9/11 on Saddam Hussien. This sort of leadership is classic ideological thinking - reality be damned.

One cannot say enough bad things about a president who so openly lies as to even claim alunimum tubes were for WMD - when written reports from three advance physics labs contradicted that claim. Did he bother to read those reports also? *Apparrently* not which is why even on The Cellar, some foolishly were convinced those aluminim tubes were for nuclear weapons development. Notice I had read about those physics labs reports that George Jr *apparently* did not read when he lied about WMD. *Apparently* I do read some things. And having done this little bit of reading, I further believe this president does very little reading before he 'makes' a decision. He has a political staff headed by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney to do all the reading for him. No wonder this president could not testify before the 9/11 Commission without Cheney's help. Somebody who reads had to be there.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because you don't like negative emotions, like ire, and fear, and rage. you are incomplete if you abandon all emotion.
and that is a blunt, honest fact

Failed to understand the point of that post - that started with an example of using rather than quashing emotions. Emotions are a powerful force. But does one fire high power rifles and 105mm cannons into the air only because happiness that a son was born? Yes if emotions are your enemy. No if a logical brain controls those emotions.

Apparently you failed to comprehend what was posted. No where did I say humans should be emotionalless - should be Spock. In fact I posted, by example, the complete opposite. Emotion is a powerful force. But human emotions are always controlled by a logical brain - when the human is an adult. There are many adults who are still children. They will fire military weapons in the air simply to celebrate a wedding - even in LA. No adult would ever let emotions threaten human life. The difference between an adult and an adult child.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because you don't like negative emotions, like ire, and fear, and rage. you are incomplete if you abandon all emotion.
and that is a blunt, honest fact

Failed to understand the point of my post - that began with an example of using rather than quashing emotions. Emotions are a powerful force. But does one fire high power rifles and 105mm cannons into the air only because happiness that a son was born? Yes if emotions are your enemy. No if a logical brain controls those emotions.

Apparently you failed to comprehend what was posted. No where did I say humans should be emotionalless - should be Spock. In fact I posted, by example, the complete opposite. Emotion is a powerful force. But human emotions are always controlled by a logical brain - when the human is an adult. There are many adults who are still children. They will fire military weapons in the air simply to celebrate a wedding - even in LA. No adult would ever let emotions threaten human life. The difference between an adult and an adult child.

[lumberjim]

that's crazy talk

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

that's crazy talk

Crazy talk is when one advocates doing anything to appease one's emotions. It is also called 'being a child'. Politicians and salesmen love adult children. These are the easiest to separate from their money. True adults keep their emotions in check - buy what they really need and therefore have more fun and happiness.

[lumberjim]

no, i meant you sound like you're crazy. not so much what you were saying, more ~how~ you say it. cuckoo...... cuckoo......