Memo to Jerry Seinfeld: Welcome to Our World

We’re actually both right. See http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Both political and empirical evidence led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental illness. I never hear anyone speak of “transgenderism”. So , that’s my mistake, I suppose, in the same way that we don’t often hear blacks referred to as Negroes anymore. As a group, they are transgender.

Jenner still likes women. So here’s what he did: he went from being a heterosexual male to become a full fledged lesbian. If that’s not a mental disorder I don’t know what is.

Wait!!!! I just figured it out: someone who celebrates when someone else changes from being a heterosexual male into a full fledged lesbian by parading that person around and referring to him/her/it as a national hero and a role model has a serious mental disorder.

Greetings Bob Hadley, I shall respond.
How much of it was over-reaching by various liberals and how much was skillful PR by Pres. Reagan is an open question.

Yes it IS an open question, but assuming Ronnie “hijacked” the term liberal and turned it into a pejorative, I’m glad you acknowledge that the “over-reaching by various liberals” aided the skillful PR of Mr. Reagan in doing the job. Trust me, he couldn’t have done it without their help no matter how great of a communicator he is said to have been.

Do I blame Carter for the hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? No but I cannot deny that his weak response to both is what helped Reagan win the presidency. Should I assume that you don’t believe in the infamous “October Surprise” that so many on the left often promote as the reason why the hostages were not released until after Reagan’s inauguration? I would assume that you are smarter than that, but admittedly that is an assumption as well; I hope it’s not an unreasonable one. That said, Osama Bin Laden himself had called the U.S. a “paper tiger” and two things he used to support this statement was Carter’s miserable failure to get the hostages back and Reagan’s miserable failure to punish the perpetrators after the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon. So while I cannot blame Carter for the crisis, I DO point out that because he would not even threaten a show of force to get them back shows that he was weak. Do you yourself believe that Carter was a strong leader during the hostage crisis? By the way, there are many who say that at least we didn’t lose any lives during the crisis. That is true, but as I recall on the raid on Entebbe, at least the Israelis made it clear not to mess with them (at least during that period). Carter sure as hell never came off as somebody who punish our enemies and make them regret what they did so as to deter them in the future (and neither did Reagan during his OWN hostage crisis on the airplane, although Reagan DID retaliate against Khadafy which is much more than Carter ever did).

Saying that is as stupid as blaming Pres. GW Bush for 9/11.
As you yourself are most likely aware, the left HAS been blaming Bush and Cheney for 9/11 AND many on the left who claim to be liberals STILL believe that it was an inside job. And yes I realize that some right wingers think Obama is a Muslim and foreign born—THEY TOO are ALSO IDIOTS in the same vein as the liberal 9/11 Truther movement.

I bet your reaction is that Pres. Reagan was justified to do this and Pres. Obama was not.

Making ASSUMPTIONS, are you? If you were to make that bet then you would LOSE big time. You seem to be under the false notion (as so many partisans of either side are) that just because I am right wing that I somehow blindly follow whatever I’m told. Not very liberal of you, as that sounds like a gross generalization and painting with a broad brush. That would be just as stupid as people saying that because some black people supported rioting when a decision is made that they don’t like, that ALL black people support that decision. Yeah I agree, that’s a pretty dumb generalization to make.
Peace!

Greetings Bob Hadley;

You are providing me with something I enjoy: an intelligent yet respectful discussion with somebody I more than likely disagree with on socio-political issues.

Re: The October Surprise and 9/11 Truthers. I say that the liberal leftists who despise Reagan and Bush/Cheney are the ones who promote these theories and that they are not a part of some “apolitical sub-culture” any more than the idiotic birther movement is. All of those movements are made up of partisan hacks who lean right or left, but I would NOT call them apolitical because these people DO have an agenda, depending on which side that they lean. One example of this is Vann Jones who eventually left the Obama Administration AFTER it was discovered that he truly DOES believe that 9/11 was an “inside job” perpetrated by Bush/ Cheney.

During the 2000 transition, when Dick Cheney spoke to Sec. of Defense
Cohen, Cheney said that all he wanted to hear about was Iraq.

This is no surprise, but that again proves my earlier point about Carter and the bad leadership that he provided during his own administration. Bush/Cheney mishandled 9/11 just as Carter mishandled the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the way the Clinton administration mishandled the several al-qaeda attacks on American interests in the 90s (which were ALSO on Bin Laden’s list of why America is “a Paper Tiger”). If we are going to be fair about judging our leaders, then we have to apply the same standards to each. By the way, in the interest of full disclosure,although I voted for Bush both times, I also voted for Obama in the last election (not the first time). Why? Because despite what the partisans like Hannity and Rush say, Obama actually IS a stronger leader than they wish to claim. Am I pleased with all of the decisions Obama made? Of course not! Nonetheless, he gave the orders to get Bin Laden once they found his location (and he even tacitly acknowledged that the coercive interrogations were successful in getting the name of the trusted courier that led them to the hideout). Obama also keeps GITMO open (which I approve of) and Obama also believes in supporting military responses when necessary. So DESPITE what Rush and Hannity and any other partisan right wing hacks might want to say, NO! President Obama is NOT “worse than Jimmy Carter!” That said, I do disagree with Obama supporting Morsi during the Arab Spring and I do disagree with his opposition to the Keystone Pipeline. You see, I can lean to the right and still be open-minded. I notice that you lean to the left and can still be open-minded as well.

I DO wish to address one other thing: you give some percentages regarding those on the left who support the 9/11 Truther movement and state them as being very low. That said, neither you nor I have any type of poll showing the percentage of people who consider themselves mainstream liberals as opposed to fringe dwellers. To make a contrast however, I believe that the numbers are higher than you have quoted, BUT I do believe that most mainstream liberals DO NOT believe that the AIDS virus was introduced by those evil conservatives to wipe out blacks and homosexuals. I think THAT baloney is reserved more for the fringe dwellers than the 9/11 Truther movement.

Anything you wish to respond to is welcome.

Peace and RIGHT WING BLESSINGS on you!

HA!

“During the 2000 transition, when Dick Cheney spoke to Sec. of Defense
Cohen, Cheney said that all he wanted to hear about was Iraq.

“This is no surprise, but that again proves my earlier point about Carter and the bad leadership that he provided during his own administration.”
The conversation between Sec. of Def. Cohen and VP-elect Cheney in NO WAY proves anything you believe about Pres. Carter’s job in 1977 – 1980. You probably meant that that conversation tends to balance what you already believed about Pres. Carter’s performance.
But I don’t see the equivalence between what Pres. Carter’s performance , whatever his failings in foreign policy, and between Pres. Bush’s inner circle dragging us into a unnecessary war under false pretense. That was what I was getting at, although admittedly I did not enunciate it. I’ve written about this on this website before.

“You are misunderstanding my point, although I will acknowledge that perhaps I did not make myself as clear as I had thought. I am NOT saying that most liberals subscribe to the 9/11 Truther movement, any more than I think that most conservatives subscribe to the equally idiotic birther movement. What I AM saying is that those who make up the 9/11 Truther movement ARE LEFTIST leaning liberals, they are NOT apolitical lunatics.”

I understood your point the first two times you made it and I addressed your point both times. You never answered my question: why do you think that? What evidence do you have? I offered some anecdotal evidence that truthers at least generally are apolitical nut jobs. But since you made the (serious) allegation, I think you should set forth some evidence.

“Bush did it through using bad information he got from intelligence sources (U.S. as well as British and Israeli and Russian), and so Bush is guilty of getting us into the war in Iraq under false pretenses, although I don’t buy that “Bush Lied” nonsense that Al Gore and others keep saying over and over again. In fact, Bush was simply wrong, but that doesn’t make him a liar.”

Here we go again!

My understanding is that the intelligence community generally thought that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons leftover from before the Gulf War I (and even that conviction was qualified by reservation). My understanding is also that intelligence community did NOT think that Iraq was actively amassing chemical and biological weapons (as alleged by the Bush administration) or that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program with delivery systems that could reach the US (as alleged by the Bush administration).
My understanding is that the Bush inner circle wanted a definite statement regarding Iraq and nuclear weapons for that infamous State of the Union speech, but that statement was continually excised by intelligence officials because it was not accurate. The final compromise was to allow the statement alleging what British intelligence found. In fact, the allegation regarding yellow cake and aluminum tubes used for nuclear weapons was disproven before the invasion of Iraq.

The statement “if we wait for a smoking gun, it may come in the form of a mushroom cloud” is scary to many Baby Boomers I ‘ve talked to. That line was used by Pres. GW Bush, Sec. Rice and perhaps others in the Bush administration.

It is clear that the Bush administration went far beyond the intelligence. They emphasized certainty, where there was not much certainty. What uncertainty they had to admit, they covered over with fear. They were like used car salesmen. Did Pres. GW Bush lie? It depends on what your definition of “is” is. He certainly was not forthcoming. Lie or not, on such a deathly important matter, don’t you think it is highly reprehensible for a president not to be forthcoming?

I think Pres. GW Bush is a very decent man, but he was in way over his head. I think the neocons in his administration hijacked his foreign policy. Reports I’ve heard indicate that this WMD issue was likely a pretext.
I strongly suspect that the Bush administration inner circle concluded that invading Iraq was a good idea and then devised a propaganda campaign to sell it.

“Question: do you honestly believe that Jimmy Carter was an effective and great leader as a president? What is your current opinion of him? Do you wish he were able to lead the nation again? Just curious.”
I haven’t studied the Carter period, so I’ll withhold judgment. My Mom’s cousin was Pres. Carter’s campaign manager when Carter was a Georgia politician. He said that Carter took a lot of wrong turns when he became president. Knowing my Mom’s cousin, Pres. Carter must have been much more conservative in Georgia politics.
I know all the rhetoric, but I don’t criticize someone without knowing the situation. Conservative can huff and puff all they want, but I do fact-based analysis. That’s how I roll.

“I offer the same anecdotal evidence from all of the Truthers that I myself have spoken with over the years. Every one of them identified themselves as progressive leftists to me when I spoke with them. If your own anecdotal evidence is good enough for you, then mine should be as well.”

The third time is a charm! Why didn’t you simply say this before? I asked you twice what the basis for your belief was. The truthers you’ve spoken to are much different from truthers I’ve talked with.

“Do I think W. was in over his head? Yes he was but so was Carter. I too think that W. is at heart a decent man, but I cannot deny that he has been vilified by the left as Carter has been vilified by the right. That said, I would agree that since both of them badly mishandled the aggressive threats from the Middle East that both of them brought this vilification on themselves. Although for so many progressive leftists to try to equate Bush with Hitler and calling him “the real butcher of Baghdad” –well in my opinion that hateful rhetoric had no place in an intelligent discussion about the situation. I’ll cite liberal icon Alan Colmes once again, when he said that when he went to protest the Iraq war, he was absolutely disgusted by the display that he saw from his fellow liberals when they carried such hateful signs to the protests.”

That rant has almost nothing to do with what I said. You almost completely evaded my points. You’re obviously so emotional about this stuff that you will go off on tangents. This is one way that communication breaks down. I say A, B and C. Then you use what I just said as an excuse to go on a tirade about X, Y and Z. You might reread my previous post.

“So you don’t want to comment on Carter’s presidency, eh? Well I lived through it. I came from a union family of democrat voters, so by default I felt that I was one too. Then Jimmy Carter came along after Gerald Ford and I recall the hostage crisis, the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the double digit inflation, and the first of the soaring gasoline prices. Carter is often given credit for the Camp David peace accords, but when it came to strengthening his own country, he dropped the ball big time! I was too young to vote for Reagan the first time, but during the next election I did vote for him.”

Here again, your rant is almost completely non-responsive to what I said. And if you’ll read my post carefully, you’ll see that I didn’t comment on Pres. Carter’s presidency not because I simply didn’t want to but because I haven’t investigated the pertinent facts. I know the events you listed during Pres. Carter’s term and , as I indicated, I know all the anti-Carter polemics. That’s nothing new to me. But only a fool would allow himself to be schooled by polemics. At best, polemics are only a starting point for investigation.

” [Quoting me] Conservative can huff and puff all they want, but I do fact-based analysis. That’s how I roll.

“Then I suggest you check out current liberal attitudes about Carter and see where he stands with current progressives as well as Reagan. I’ll offer you some more anecdotes before I sign off:

“One liberal woman had the nerve to say that “Remember, Jimmy Carter got the hostages back without firing a shot.” (Face palm)”

What do current liberal attitudes and Pres. Reagan’s standing among progressives have to do with me insisting on not commenting on Pres. Carter until I can do a fact-based analysis??????????? Am I missing something? You again reacted to A, B and C with X, Y and Z.

“The part that these people leave out is that the liberals of Reagan’s day called him a “genial idiot” and said that “he can ACT like a president” and for years went on and on about how “STUPID” Reagan was.”
There were ten of millions of American liberals back in Pres. Reagan’s day – many of them devout Christians. There’s no way you know what these tens of millions of liberal Americans were or were not calling Pres. Reagan. There’s no way you know what more than .00001% of all liberal American were saying or not saying about Pres. Reagan.
Remember when Bernie said that quite possibly the overwhelming majority of Christians are not bigots against homosexuals, but that the Christians that are bigoted against gays simply have a big megaphone? I suspect that the same is true of liberals saying such things about Pres. Reagan.
I can spend all day listing all the stupid things that right wingers say and do, but what does that prove? Does that prove that the tens of millions of American conservatives are like that? Or is it just indicative that the extremes get the media attention? And saying extreme or provocative things is increasingly profitable.

“Because historically my experience with left wingers is that every time I bring up personal experiences that they dismiss it as “anecdotal evidence” and thus should not be used unless I can cite it from another source, but apparently you are not like that, so I’m happy to use it here and appreciate the fact that you will respect my anecdotal evidence as I have respected yours.”

Are you really Bill O’Reilly? You keep saying that you’re giving me the last word and then adding your two cents. I’m joking.

With all due respect, that answer is so nonsensical that it sounds disingenuous. 1) The first two times I addressed this issue I used evidence that I admitted was only anecdotal to support my view. Why would I admit to only having anecdotal evidence and then dismiss evidence that is anecdotal????????? Let me guess: historically it’s your experience that left wingers use anecdotal evidence but then dismiss it when used by others. Right??? 2) If I’d be dismissive of anecdotal evidence, don’t you think I’d be even more dismissive of the zero evidence you presented the first two times? 3) I’ve never heard it this said about left wingers or about anyone except when discussing science. 4) And since when do you allow left wingers inhibit you?

“It may have nothing to do with you personally, but It has EVERYTHING to do with current left wing attitudes, which I despise when they try to rewrite history.”

Exactamundo! Your rant had nothing to do with me! I was talking to you and you were talking to me. Why do you ignore almost everything I say and then go on a tirade about what various other people say? Dollars to donuts that if you were trying to have a rational discussion with a liberal about a particular set of issues and whenever you’d give him a factual analysis, he’d go off on a tirade about stupid things that various right wingers have said, you get your shorts in a wad.

You’re obviously so emotional about these topics that it’s a struggle to see straight.

“That pretty much sums up my own point about the liberals that bashed Reagan, and I appreciate you acknowledging this.”

No, you said in your previous post that liberals called Pres. Reagan those names. The implication is that either all liberals or liberals in general called Pres. Reagan names. Just like if someone said “Christian are anti-gay bigots” the implication would be that all Christians or Christians in general are anti-gay bigots.
If you’re now modifying your statement to at least a few loudmouth liberals called Pres. Reagan names, than bravo!

“Perhaps the question that you and I should be asking is WHY in the world do the loudmouth dunderheads get so much airtime?”
I gave my answers to this question in my previous post: the various media gravitate to people who are extreme and provocative because they boost their ratings and, consequently, people who are extreme and provocative make more money. Another reason is that being extreme and provocative will often win you elections. Bernie doesn’t call us the United States of Entertainment for nothing.
Do me one favor, if you would. If you decide to respond, read this post several times and then wait awhile before responding.
The humanist psychologist Karl Rogers said that two could promote understanding and communication by doing the following: when the first person talks, the other person listens. When the first person finishes talking, the second person summarizes what the first person said in his own words and in NEUTRAL terms. When the first person tells the second person that he has accurately captured what he said, then the second person can respond. Of course, they takes turns talking, summarizing and responding.
I think you could benefit from this method when discussing these matters with someone you disagree with. That assumes, of course, that you’re genuinely interested in clarifying your views and learning about the views of others.

Ah yes, always an excuse. Blame it all on sinners, the same ones you suggest will be saved if they proclaim jesus as their savior.

When was the last ‘miracle’? Have you witnessed any?

Good luck with that Curt.

I don’t mean to diminish your ‘achievement’ but can you tell me why your god doesn’t value life? This is just one of many examples and only the 9th deadliest natural disaster on record since about 1100ce or so. Loving god could perform ‘miracles’ for others, not just you, right?

“On Dec. 26, 2004, an undersea, magnitude-9.3
earthquake, with an epicenter off the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia, resulted in a devastating tsunami that hit the coasts of several countries in South and Southeast Asia. The Indian Ocean earthquake and its resulting tsunami killed an estimated 225,000 to 230,210 people.”

You say quite a bit there…and above suggested you had witnessed a miracle, which was your saving.

I asked why 100,000’s of people died needlessly at the hands of a tsunami, you say nothing of it. Do you think those people didn’t chose the right god? If they weren’t introduced to your god, do they still get the chance to go to your heaven? Doesn’t seem like the bible makes room for such folks.

What about miscarriages, why would god do that? Or deformities…?

“He is an amoral pantheistic God who created the universe like an indifferent watch maker who, after winding the watch, just stood back and let it all unwind.”

Is prayer an essential element of Christianity? Do you pray expecting results?

I’m sure you’re not…I know many good people who are unsure and looking. Some who were indoctrinated as children and others who were not.

The biggest issue for most is the idea of a ‘present’ god that participates in prayer. It is difficult to assume a god of love when watching Isis behead a Christian. We all know they are praying, right? Why would god answer any other prayer before that one?

Must we concede ‘miracles’ really don’t happen?

Is that a question for me or god?

“sa·credˈ sākrəd/adjective adjective: sacred connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.”

I am in a quandary. If I answer your question as is, I would acknowledge the existence of god. Although intrigued by religion, I do not believe in any magical being or force.

I don’t. There are many things I don’t personally understand as well as many things we as a ‘society’ do not understand. It is not a requirement for me.

Obviously, I’m interested and curious as to how the universe began. Not having answers doesn’t make me look to magical creations from centuries old teachings. Many of the questions that they had 4000 – 6000 years ago have been answered…and, dare I say, many of them ‘corrected’ from the initial belief systems of early religions.

The more we learn can sometimes lead to less clarity and more questions, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

We do not know why or how cancer first started, do you believe god did that too?

That’s nice of you to say.

I’ve read a lot of books and discuss these topics ad nauseam with someone who has actually met Lee Strobel. I don’t want to get snarky either, I truly appreciate your honesty to this point and wish for the conversation to continue…BUT…we’re crossing into the most difficult of topics here, more of justification than true questioning.

I ask you…why has the question of origin or beginnings become so important? It wasn’t even a question until society began investigating space.

Let us be clear, there were many gods before yours and they became myth…why? Likely because we learn and adapt, there are 2 questions that remain:

– how does life (the universe included) begin?
– what happens when one dies?

We know our bodies and cure disease. We travel the world like it’s a marble. We communicate instantly almost anywhere. We understand the weather and can predict it. We have charted and manipulate the elements of the earth to our benefit. We have traveled outside of our atmosphere many many times. We have charted much of the millions of planets in our solar system and know of many many more. We have an atom smasher that recently saw dark matter (the god particle) for the first time.

In a short time, we will be able to farm organs. We are becoming bionic, putting devices into our bodies for a better quality and longer lasting life.

The religious want me to believe a book that says the Sun travels around the Earth. That a boy is possessed by the devil when he actually has epilepsy. Any number of natural disasters are blamed on the devil, and people burned at the stake as witches. If god wrote it, why would it say that?

I won’t…I can’t…I question those that do.

If one walked into a psychologists office and said: I am having a difficult time with death. I ask a magic friend in the sky that I have never met to help me understand what is going to happen to me when I die. I pray to ‘him’ and he ‘speaks’ to me and guides me in my everyday life. I have experienced ‘his’ influence in my life many times and feel lost when I cannot ‘communicate’ with ‘him’. I have never made a bad decision because ‘he’ tells me no matter what I do, he’ll be there for me when I die and it will be a beautiful fearless wonderfully carefree place.

This individual walks out with a prescription and a diagnosis.

Good luck with that…I have one in the near future as well.