[FairfieldLife] Magnetic portals connect us to sun
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Governator' Schwarzenegger mocks 'skinny' Obama!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: It's about time someone knocks him off this giant pedestal he's been on! Ha, ha, good one Arnold!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081031/ts_alt_afp/usvotemccainschwarzenegger_081031231405 Here's the Video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxSW9nK3kI8 As a Dolph showed several decades ago, German accent seems to be very effective in demagogy... ;D
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Governator' Schwarzenegger mocks 'skinny' Obama!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: It's about time someone knocks him off this giant pedestal he's been on! Ha, ha, good one Arnold!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081031/ts_alt_afp/usvotemccainschwarzenegger_081031231405 Here's the Video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxSW9nK3kI8 Seems to me that Skinny is a compliment, coming from this guy: http://www.popular-pics.com/PPImages/arnold_schwarzenegger_fat.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Lessons in Advanced Perception by Harold S. Schroeppel - see his obituary
A sad loss to the world of consciousness! For info on the profound work of Harold S. Schroeppel, search Google for: Lessons in Advanced Perception http://www.google.com/search?q=lessons+in+advanced+perception Harold S. Schroeppel, 89, entered into rest October 1, 2008, in Tallahassee. Funeral services will be held at 2 p.m. EDT Tuesday, at Culley's MeadowWood Funeral Home Riggins Road Chapel, with burial at Culley's MeadowWood Memorial Park. The family will receive friends Tuesday at the funeral home from 1 p.m. until the service. Memorial contributions may be made to the Father Flanagan Boys Home. Harold moved to Tallahassee seventeen years ago, from Chicago, where he had been a longtime resident. He was an analytical chemist, and a member of the American Chemical Society, and honored by them for his 60 years of service. Harold founded the Institute for Advanced Perception in Oak Park, Illinois. He trained teacher who later became officers for the Illinois Society for Psychic Research. Harold was an ordained minister in the Non-denominational Church, and served at St. Mary's Oneness Temple International in Chicago. His original works were published in the Aberee magazine. As a public speaker, he was known for his ability to deliver lectures on nearly sixty topics at the drop of a hat. Author Rod Steiger recognized Harold's work as the basis for one of his novels. Harold helped thousands of people internationally through his teaching with the Institute for Advanced Perception. Harold is survived by his wife, Patricia Muth, of Tallahassee; and his four children, Richard Schroeppel (Hilarie Orman), of Woodland Hills, Utah, their daughter Mercury Schroeppel and Richard's son, Richard Threadgill; Renata Schroeppel (Mike McCurry, Colman, S.D.), and their daughter, Samantha; Cyprienne Schroeppel, of Redmond, Washington, and her sons, Peregrine and Haeley Rene Schroeppel, of St. Charles, Illinois; and other loving relatives, Lynn and Garth Williams, of Dayton, Ohio, and their sons, Bret (Christina), Graham and Nik; David and Rami Muth, of Benicia, California, and their daughters, Lisa and Rachel.
[FairfieldLife] YHWH wants to pay Linn?
All of a sudden, I'm quite certain, that a Scottish(?) chap shall win, because G-d wants a flirtatious religious fanatic dressed in red (Whore of Babylon?) as the first female president of the strongest military power of this planet, to pay Linn what's her due... :0
[FairfieldLife] File - FFL Acronyms
BC - Brahman Consciousness BN - Bliss Ninny or Bliss Nazi CC - Cosmic Consciousness GC - God Consciousness MMY - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi OTP - Off the Program - a phrase used in the TM movement meaning to do something (such as see another spiritual teacher) considered in violation of Maharishi's program. POV - Point of View SBS - Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Maharishi's master SCI Science of Creative Intelligence SOC - State of Consciousness SSRS - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (Pundit-ji) SV - Stpathya Ved (Vedic Architecture) TB - True Believer (in TM doctrines) TNB - True Non-Believer TMO - The Transcendental Meditation organization TTC TM Teacher Training Course UC - Unity Consciousness WYMS - World Youth Meditation Society later changed to World Youth Movement for the Science of Creative Intelligence was founded by Peter Hübner in Germany, as a national TM outlet competing with SIMS, Students International Meditation Society YMMV = Your Mileage may vary To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] File - FFL Guidelines.txt
Guidelines File - Updated 9/8/08 Fairfield Life used to average 75-150 posts a day - 300+ on peak days - and the guidelines included steps on how to deal with the volume. But this volume was due largely to indiscriminate posting by a few members. We now have a policy that limits all members to 50 posts a week. Most participants feel this policy has greatly enhanced the quality of the forum. A Post Count message is posted every evening, listing members' names (or aliases) and the number of messages they've posted that week. Those who exceed their weekly quota will be prohibited from posting for a week. The new week starts each Friday at 7pm Iowa time, or 00:00 UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). UTC is the same as Greenwich Mean Time during winter. -- You can also read FFL posts at http://www.mail-archive.com/fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com/. Some say this is faster than the Yahoo groups interface, and prefer it because it allows sorting by thread and has a better search function. Additional images are archived at http://alex.natel.net/ffl/images/. -- 1) This group has long maintained a thoughtful and considerate tone. Please refrain from personal attacks, insults and excessive venting. Speak the truth that is sweet is a worthy aspiration. If angry, take some time to gain composure before writing or pushing the send button. 2) Edit your posts and make them as concise and non-repetitive as possible. 3) Please snip - be highly selective in quoting a message to which you are responding, deleting all but the most relevant portions of the prior posts. This makes the daily digest easier to read for those who subscribe to it. Also, if the topic of a thread changes, please change the subject header. 4) Try to make clear to the reader if you are writing from the perspective of personal experience, from information gained from teachers or books, from your own thoughts, reasoning, logic or conjecture. Please cite sources where relevant. 5) Reference prior posts by their archive number whenever possible. 6) Anonymous posts are permitted, using an account you create. 7) FFL is a newsgroup public forum. FFL can be openly read from the web. Posting privileges are through membership only. Material published to FFL is not privileged or protected by law. Material published to FFL might be quoted and used elsewhere. 8) Posting of adult material, either text or photos, is prohibited. Violation of this guideline may result in expulsion from the group. 9) Make cross-posts from other sites only as they are relevant to this group. If you think another site has great value, write one post saying so, then let others join or go to that site on their own, at their discretion. 10) Only post links to other sites that are relevant references to the specific discussion at hand. 11) While friendly exchange between friends is natural, try to pass on personal messages via personal e-mail, refraining where possible from sending personal messages to the whole list. 12) Feel to invite your friends to join FFL, and to use the site's Promote feature on your websites. The broader the personal network, the greater the value to all. Friends may now access the posts of FFL directly off the home page without having to join the list. 13) Please don't post commercial announcements in the main message area. Folders have been set up in the Database, Links and Files sections for listing books, CDs, DVDs and other items for trade, a Fairfield ride board, local events, hiring/looking for work announcements, informative articles, useful links, etc. Also check http://fairfieldtoday.com/. 14) Political discussions are allowed. However, be kind and respectful of others' viewpoints. Come with a humble heart, an open mind, and the desire to contribute constructively to everyone's broader awareness. 15) Keep in mind that many FFL members desire to maintain anonymity. If you happen to know a member's real name, perhaps because that member has mentioned it in a post or two, or to you privately, please refer to that member only by their pseudonym. 16) If you want to make suggestions for the refinement of these guidelines, please post them in the forum.
[FairfieldLife] A spiritual approach to the last 96 hours of the campaign
So. I woke up this morning, meditated, fixed myself a double espresso, and sat down at the computer to play catch up with the world. And I realized that as I did so I was not looking forward to what has become my daily morning ritual. Why? Because I knew that these would be the Crazy Days, and that most of what I would be reading -- on the News and on FFL -- would fall into one of two categories. The first would be preaching-to-the-choir echo-chamber gloating, as the supporters of one of the Presidential candidates wrote more and more verbiage to *other* supporters of the same Presidential candidate, with the clear intent to push their loyalty and patriotism and we're-right-and-they're-wrong buttons. The second would be panicky, terrified, fear- mongering hate speech, aimed by supporters of one candidate at the supporters of the other, with the clear intent to push their reactivity and defensiveness and attachment and no-WE'RE- right-and-YOU'RE-wrong buttons. So I kinda made a decision to act like a spir- itual being for once and try not to get my buttons pushed. Let's face it -- if you get your buttons pushed, the ONLY thing you are demonstrating by going postal and reacting angrily and defensively is the extent of your own attachment. If you get your loyalty/partisan buttons pushed and react equally strongly, IMO the ONLY thing you are demonstrating is the extent of your own attachment. These last 96 hours are going to be Hell. We're all trained perceivers here, and we can all feel it coming. And I think that most of us dread it. But a few, who have come to GET OFF on demon- strating the extent of their attachment, are going to not only revel in getting their own buttons pushed, they are going to work overtime at pushing the buttons of others. We're going to see some of the nastiest shit that any of us have ever seen on the Internet. And in my opinion we're going to see it not only on the News, but here on Fairfield Life, a supposedly spiritual forum populated by people with -- as I said last week -- an average of 30 years each pursuing a strong spiritual path. You all know what I'm talking about. It's already started. So what's a seeker to do? What can one person DO in the face of this onslaught of attachment and negativity and button-pushing? Well, I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to try to not allow my buttons to get pushed. If I do allow it, the button-pushers win, and my own attachments win. If I don't, they lose, and I lose some of my attachments. I think that this next 96 hours presents us, as spiritual seekers, an opportunity to see whether we actually *learned anything* in the last 30-40 years. If we didn't, we'll react to the button-pushing the same way that the non-meditators that many here look down on do, demonstrating that there is NO difference at all. If we actually DID learn some- thing, a few of us are going to resist getting our buttons pushed, and react with equanimity and with some semblance of non-attachment. And we'll all be able to tell who falls into which category. Which one do you want to be in?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
On Oct 31, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: No wonder you're so confused, neither of these are teachers in that tradition. Vaj, don't be so elitist, you do not know all there is to know about the Indian traditions. Your incessant trashing of the Marshy, for no apparent reason, leads me to believe that you're not very informed. That's correct, I don't know everything about Indian traditions, but neither does anyone else. Fortunately I've had good teachers who set me straight on the relative truth of matters. I have little interest in trashing Mahesh Varma the so-called Maharishi, but instead feel it is important, when relevant, to set the historical record straight since members of his Neo-vedic marketing cult seem hellbent on pushing an untrue story, a fiction. You are supposed to read the book BEFORE you post your comments! I read Zen Flesh, Zen Bones years ago after hearing about it from Johnny Gray. Haven't read it since, but I always loved the Ox-herding pictures and their story of Shamatha.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
On Oct 31, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: Five Shaiva saints called Arrivars had compiled the pieces of the pre-Vedic teachings in 28 volumes. The Chandogya Upanishad is one of the primary (mukhya) Upanishads. Together with the Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad it ranks among the oldest Upanishads, dating to the Vedic Brahmana period (probably before mid-first millennium BCE). Most of what is known as Hinduism descends not from the Veda, but from the Agamas. Even the Vaishnavite classic, the Bhagavad-gita, is largely plagiarized directly from the Agamas! Like I said, you seem really confused, but this is not unusual. The idea that Hinduism stems from the Vedas has caused monumental errors in dating. Such errors were further compounded by the many false Vaishnavite teachers that began arriving in the west, esp. since the 60's. Some even claimed to be yogis but taught false doctrines and really just wanted to sell the Vedas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama will redistribute your wealth along with his Uncle Joe
Spread the wealth! Isn't it odd to how you have to go to the British papers -- in this case the London Times -- for this kind of story instead of just reading it on your local newsgroup? So, go ahead - tell me that the postings on FL are fair and balanced. He has used these people -- his grandmother, his aunt and uncle, and so forth -- as props in his political narrative. He wants us to measure him in part by his relationship to these Kenyans, but -- and here is the harsh part -- only as that relationship is described by him. What if his characterization of that relationship is misleading? What if it turns out that while he is delighted to cite these people as evidence of his humble beginnings -- that is what I mean by using them as props -- he is not so delighted to consider them as part of his family? Is that not at least a potentially useful insight into the character of this man about whom we know so little? http://tinyurl.com/6a59uy The most damning part of the Obama aunt story is that once his campaign found her living in squalor they told her to not talk to the press until after the election, but they didn't try to help her. http://tinyurl.com/6gaukb I have finally figured out why somebody who has been as successful as Barack Obama believes that the government must help people who cannot or do not help themselves: He simply does not understand that helping the poor, unlucky, or incompetent is first the responsibility of family. http://tinyurl.com/6a59uy Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Mr Obama's best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father, lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston. http://tinyurl.com/58z6m2 Read more: 'Found in a rundown Boston estate: Barack Obama's aunt Zeituni Onyango' Times Online, October 30, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/58z6m2 And what about Obama's beloved Kenyan brothers and sisters? None of his family was invited to Boston to share his prominence. Are his relatives being kept in the closet? Where are they? http://tinyurl.com/2qlyp5 Estimates vary, but many experts believe there are more than 10 million such immigrants in the United States. Read more: 'Obama aunt from Kenya living in US illegally' by Eileen Sullivan and Elliot Spagat Associated Press, November 1, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/68evdl
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Governator' Schwarzenegger mocks 'skinny' Obama!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's about time someone knocks him off this giant pedestal he's been on! Ha, ha, good one Arnold!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081031/ts_alt_afp/usvotemccainschwarzenegger_081031231405 Yeah, we wouldn't want a healthy guy as president. Better a guy known for taking anabolic steroids for yrs in order to get an artificially and weird looking muscled body, not to mention a disturbed hormonal system and shrunken testicles for life. Yeah, nothing says macho like shrunken testicles.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Schwarzenegger: Our Democracy is not for Sale
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Schwarzenegger: Obama needs to do something about his skinny legs...some squats and for his scrawny little arms...some bicep curls then we need to put some meat on his ideas. http://tinyurl.com/6kljgb Actually Obama was a collegiate athlete in basketball. His thin frame comes from his kenyan genes, but he's in much better shape than arnold in terms of respiratory and cardiovascular health (not to mention McCain who needs help from his wife going down stairs). Forget about squats, Arnold needs to do some detox for his steroid damaged liver - maybe he'd think more clearly then. Exactly 4 yrs ago, Arnold came to Ohio to campaign for Bush, telling his columbus audience how great Bush was for the economy. Why listen to this guy now? Arnold should go home and deal with his $20 billion budget deficit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Governator' Schwarzenegger mocks 'skinny' Obama!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. wgm4u@ wrote: It's about time someone knocks him off this giant pedestal he's been on! Ha, ha, good one Arnold!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081031/ts_alt_afp/usvotemccainschwarzenegger_081031231405 Here's the Video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxSW9nK3kI8 Seems to me that Skinny is a compliment, coming from this guy: http://www.popular-pics.com/PPImages/arnold_schwarzenegger_fat.jpg Heh heh, that was my reaction, too. Yo! Flabinator! How about you strip down to your skivvies and *then* tear into the guy for being slender. Oh well... when all the GOP has to offer is four more years of the same failed policies of the last eight, the only thing they can do is toss lame impotent barbs at their opponents.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
Vaj wrote:
Five Shaiva saints called Arrivars had compiled
the pieces of the pre-Vedic teachings in 28
volumes.
The Chandogya Upanishad is one of the primary (mukhya) Upanishads.
Together with the Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana and the Brihadaranyaka
Upanishad it ranks among the oldest Upanishads, dating to the Vedic
Brahmana period (probably before mid-first millennium BCE).
Most of what is known as Hinduism descends not from the Veda, but from
the Agamas. Even the Vaishnavite classic, the Bhagavad-gita, is
largely plagiarized directly from the Agamas!
I wonder what u mean by aagama. In YS, aagama is one of the
three pramaaNa-s:
pratyakSaanumaanaagamaaH (pratyakSa-anumaana+aagamaaH*) pramaaNaani
*aagamaaH is the nominative *plural* of aagama(H), because
here it's the last component of a dvandva-compound of more
than two components (in which case it would be in nominative
*dual...)
Agama mf(%{A})n. coming near , approaching AV. vi , 81 , 2 ; xix , 35
, 3 ; m. (ifc. f. %{A}) arrival , coming , approach R. c. ; origin
Mn. viii , 401 R. c. ; appearance or reappearance MBh. ii , 547 ;
course (of a fluid) , issue (e.g. of blood) Mn. viii , 252 Sus3r. ;
income , lawful acquisition (of property , %{artha} , %{dhana} ,
%{vitta} , %{draviNa}) Mn. MBh. c. ; reading , studying Pat. ;
acquisition of knowledge , science MBh. Ya1jn5. c. ; a traditional
doctrine or precept , collection of such doctrines , sacred work ,
Bra1hmana Mn. xii , 105 MBh. c. ; anything handed down and fixed by
tradition (as the reading of a text or a record , title-deed , c.) ;
addition Nir. i , 4 ; a grammatical augment , a meaningless syllable
or letter inserted in any part of the radical word Pra1t. Pa1n2. Comm.
; N. of a rhetorical figure ; (%{am}) n. a Tantra or work inculcating
the mystical worship of S3iva and S3akti.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
you do not know all there is to know about the Indian traditions. Vaj wrote: That's correct, I don't know everything about Indian traditions, but neither does anyone else. And neither do I, but this is what I know: Swami Lachsmanjoo was a great friend of the Marshy's, as the photo cited proves beyond a doubt. Jerry Jarvis said about this photo that the Swami was ecstatic when the TTC course visited his ashram. They all meditated together for hours, each using their very own bija mantra given to them by the Marshy. Now that's Trika! http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/images/lakman01.jpg According to John Hughes, (TTC Rishikesh-Kashmere 1968), the Lachsman practiced a meditation that was just like TM and he was checked by the Marshy himself. In fact, according to John Hughe's son, Vivek, the designated successor to Swami Lachsmanjoo, the Swami often refered to the Marshy as his 'meditation teacher.' The Swami reccomended meditation to all his students. These are the facts. As for the Trika doctrine, it's very similar to Shankara's Vedanta, which is a form of the Vasubandhu 'Consciousness Only' school. All similar. They were ALL transcendentaly meditating. All the Upanshadic sages were transcendentalists. There's only One Transcendental.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
Not that the mentally deranged or LIVs care, but here is a good summary of the khalid nonsense by the washington post: It turns out that McCain is treading on tricky ground when he cites the Khalidi case as an example of Obama consorting with terrorist sympathizers. The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank. This is a case of guilt by association gone haywire. Both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice have had extensive dealings with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is much more closely identified with the PLO than Rashidi ever was. Verdict: the McCain camp has wildly exaggerated the significance of the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi triangle.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you do not know all there is to know about the Indian traditions. Vaj wrote: That's correct, I don't know everything about Indian traditions, but neither does anyone else. And neither do I, but this is what I know: Swami Lachsmanjoo was a great friend of the Marshy's, as the photo cited proves beyond a doubt. Jerry Jarvis said about this photo that the Swami was ecstatic when the TTC course visited his ashram. There's also a photo of MMY holding hands with muktinanda, who's been proven to have been molesting underage girls in his ashram, which according to willy's political logic means MMY was palling around with pedophiles and was probably one himself and by association so was laksmanjoo, so I don't get why willy is so keen on this pervert? They all meditated together for hours, each using their very own bija mantra given to them by the Marshy. Now that's Trika! According to thousands of posts by willy, MMY did not give but sold mantras to fools willing to fall for his lies about getting enlightened in 5 yrs, so all of these people at this mediation were fools, which means Trika is for fools. http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/images/lakman01.jpg According to John Hughes, (TTC Rishikesh-Kashmere 1968), the Lachsman practiced a meditation that was just like TM and he was checked by the Marshy himself. Glad to see willy believes everything that TM leaders say. In fact, according to John Hughe's son, Vivek, the designated successor to Swami Lachsmanjoo, the Swami often refered to the Marshy as his 'meditation teacher.' The Swami reccomended meditation to all his students. He also believes everything children of TM teachers say - I guess because of his belief that genes are everything. These are the facts. As for the Trika doctrine, it's very similar to Shankara's Vedanta, which is a form of the Vasubandhu 'Consciousness Only' school. All similar. They were ALL transcendentaly meditating. All the Upanshadic sages were transcendentalists. There's only One Transcendental. That must explain why all religions and spiritual traditions get along and respect each other so much - like in those famous TTC tapes in which MMY criticizes every other form of meditation or spiritual tradition that he is asked about.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not that the mentally deranged or LIVs care, but here is a good summary of the khalid nonsense by the washington post: It turns out that McCain is treading on tricky ground when he cites the Khalidi case as an example of Obama consorting with terrorist sympathizers. The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank. This is a case of guilt by association gone haywire. Both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice have had extensive dealings with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is much more closely identified with the PLO than Rashidi ever was. Verdict: the McCain camp has wildly exaggerated the significance of the Obama-Ayers-Khalidi triangle. Here's Keith Olbermann's snarky take on it: http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/countdown-campaign-comment-rank-hypoc http://tinyurl.com/6c9rof
[FairfieldLife] Notice the right wing losers here are each going bonkers
As the chickens come home ... They never really looked in the mirror and faced what they saw. And now at the last moments here come the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. And no one sheds a tear for them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Proof MMY taught *Yoga-lite* for modernity!
On Nov 1, 2008, at 8:34 AM, cardemaister wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
Vaj wrote:
Five Shaiva saints called Arrivars had compiled
the pieces of the pre-Vedic teachings in 28
volumes.
The Chandogya Upanishad is one of the primary (mukhya) Upanishads.
Together with the Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana and the Brihadaranyaka
Upanishad it ranks among the oldest Upanishads, dating to the Vedic
Brahmana period (probably before mid-first millennium BCE).
Most of what is known as Hinduism descends not from the Veda, but
from
the Agamas. Even the Vaishnavite classic, the Bhagavad-gita, is
largely plagiarized directly from the Agamas!
I wonder what u mean by aagama. In YS, aagama is one of the
three pramaaNa-s:
pratyakSaanumaanaagamaaH (pratyakSa-anumaana+aagamaaH*) pramaaNaani
*aagamaaH is the nominative *plural* of aagama(H), because
here it's the last component of a dvandva-compound of more
than two components (in which case it would be in nominative
*dual...)
Agama mf(%{A})n. coming near , approaching AV. vi , 81 , 2 ; xix , 35
, 3 ; m. (ifc. f. %{A}) arrival , coming , approach R. c. ; origin
Mn. viii , 401 R. c. ; appearance or reappearance MBh. ii , 547 ;
course (of a fluid) , issue (e.g. of blood) Mn. viii , 252 Sus3r. ;
income , lawful acquisition (of property , %{artha} , %{dhana} ,
%{vitta} , %{draviNa}) Mn. MBh. c. ; reading , studying Pat. ;
acquisition of knowledge , science MBh. Ya1jn5. c. ; a traditional
doctrine or precept , collection of such doctrines , sacred work ,
Bra1hmana Mn. xii , 105 MBh. c. ; anything handed down and fixed by
tradition (as the reading of a text or a record , title-deed , c.) ;
addition Nir. i , 4 ; a grammatical augment , a meaningless syllable
or letter inserted in any part of the radical word Pra1t. Pa1n2. Comm.
; N. of a rhetorical figure ; (%{am}) n. a Tantra or work inculcating
the mystical worship of S3iva and S3akti.
Agama is what proceeded Veda. In fact at a certain point in the
cross-translation of the huge corpus of pre-Vedic writings, as they
become Brahminized, we see the original word Agama replaced with Veda.
That, along with numerous other exegetical contrivances began the
covert attempt to tie Indian civilization to a mythic Vedic origin.
By the time of the middle ages and the Vaishnavite merchant caste
revival, much of what we have today as our translations were formed
from their older, original forbears and re-translated into the
predominant language of that era, Sanskrit. A parallel in western
civilization would be the attempt to connect western civilization to
the Greeks, while ignoring the indigenous wisdom of the Druids and
others.
In a deeper sense Agama as word has a similar sense as upaniSad or
upadesha in that it means getting close to the source as your basis.
When the Brit's colonized India, one of the first things they did was
ask what is the Hindu's bible? and there was no pat answer. But they
had to find something, so we ended up with what the Vedic Brahmins,
the Big Men on Campus, told them: the Bhagavad-gita and the Vedas.
This suited them perfectly since the cult of Lingam worship and animal
sacrifice they found offensive.
The agamas and tantras, as texts, represent the most ignored part of
Indian gnostic heritage to this very day. Agamas generally give
emphasis to Shiva, while their female counterparts, the Tantras center
around Shakti or Goddess worship.
Upagamas or secondary agamas support the main agamas. These are the
origins of many texts that constitute Ayurveda, Vastu (Sthapatya
veda), etc. that were later Brahminized.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It turns out that McCain is treading on tricky ground when he cites the Khalidi case as an example of Obama consorting with terrorist sympathizers. The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank. Yesterday, readers of our blog were witness to the birth of viral meme. An 0bama troll dropped by our post on the LA Times video suppression, and informed us that the Obama-Khalidi association really wasn't any big deal. Otherwise, why would John McCain have given over $400,000 to a Palestinian group that Khalidi worked with? I googled his cut-and-paste comment and discovered that the exact same phrase had been already been posted to the internet over 500 times. That same verbatim phrase now has been posted over 18,000 times! http://www.google.com/search?hl=enclient=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Ae\ n-US%3Aofficialq=During+the+1990s%2C+while+he+served+as+chairman+of+the\ +International+Republican+Institute+%28IRI%29%2C+McCain+distributed+seve\ ral+grants+to+the+Palestinian+research+center+co-founded+by+Khalidi%2C++\ btnG=Search McCain gave money to Khalidi? The truth behind the meme http://nukegingrich.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/mccain-gave-money-to-khali\ di-the-truth-behind-the-meme/Posted on October 30, 2008 by nuke Obviously the O-bots think it's working. The problem is, it is only a distraction, designed to produce an illusion. Aaron Klein, writing at WND, shines the light of truth http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=79441 on the 0bama cover story. It's true that McCain distributed several grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi. What the 0-bots fail to mention is that CPRS is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel. Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as Zionist propaganda. In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama. The Obama-Khalidi connection is one more straw. Is it the one that finally breaks the donkey's back? Free The Tape!!! http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/30/protest-at-the-la-times/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Schwarzenegger: Our Democracy is not for Sale
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Schwarzenegger: Obama needs to do something about his skinny legs...some squats and for his scrawny little arms...some bicep curls then we need to put some meat on his ideas. http://tinyurl.com/6kljgb Actually Obama was a collegiate athlete in basketball. His thin frame comes from his kenyan genes, but he's in much better shape than arnold in terms of respiratory and cardiovascular health (not to mention McCain who needs help from his wife going down stairs). Uh, dude, the bit about Obama being skinny is a *joke*. It's not meant as a serious criticism. It's just a setup for the put some meat on his ideas line, which *is* a serious criticism (whether you agree or not). Plus which, Schwarzenegger isn't even comparing himself to Obama. In context, the reference is to an Ohio body-building tournament the governor hosts: Every year in March I come here to organize the Arnold Classic, which is all about building the body and pumping. That's why I want to invite Senator Obama, because he needs to do something about those skinny legs. I'm going to make him do some squats. And then we're going to make him do some biceps curls to beef up those scrawny little arms. Then we need to put some meat on his ideas. Looks like it's the Obamazoids here who are getting their buttons pushed. They can't even read a mildly funny crack by a McCain supporter without getting all bent out of shape and going to great lengths to disprove it. Lighten up, guys. You appear to be winning. One would think *you* would be the folks who wouldn't be bothered by the ploys of the nonsupporters of your candidate. At the very least, one would figure you'd attack the serious criticisms, not the *jokes*, for pete's sake.
[FairfieldLife] FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
I think it's breathtakingly stupid enough that Sarah Palin doesn't even know what the hell the Vice President actually does. But, Constitutional scholar that she is not, she has now declared that it may be a threat to her First Amendment rights when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/index.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ayers Dedicates book to Sirhan Sirhan, JFK Assassin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exclusive: 'HC' Uncovers Bill Ayers Dedications Friday, October 31, 2008 snip Now the book reads like a manifesto of the Weather Underground but the most shocking thing is on the dedication page. Mr. Ayers and his band of terrorists devote the book to, quote, all political prisoners in the U.S., and the book then lists about 100 or so names. Among the names they list a U.S. political prisoner, Sirhan Sirhan. That's right. This college professor, who is just a guy from the neighborhood who never meant to hurt anybody, who bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, New York City police headquarters, dedicated his book to the man who assassinated Robert F. Kennedy. Hannity was 7 years old when RFK was killed and around 13 when Ayers's book was published (in quotes because it appears to have been privately printed, which would be why it wasn't in the NY Public Library). He may not recall that at the time, there was a huge controversy, primarily on the left, about whether Sirhan Sirhan had shot Kennedy. As with JFK's assassination, there were all kinds of conspiracy theories, among them that Sirhan was a Manchurian candidate who had been hypnotized by people who wanted RFK dead (and there were all kinds of groups that feared him) and programmed to be the fall guy for someone else, who was never identified or captured, who had actually fired the shots that killed RFK. Although he confessed to the crime, Sirhan claimed he did not remember the shooting. That Ayers considered Sirhan a political prisoner indicates that he assumed Sirhan was actually innocent. In other words, Ayers was not *applauding* the assassination of RFK by including Sirhan in the list of people to whom the book was dedicated, but rather condemning the U.S. government for having convicted him of a crime he did not commit, presumably to conceal the identity of the real killer. From the next post on this, quoting Bud White: Obama and Ayers, friends and collaborators; Obama endorsed Ayers' book, Ayers dedicated his book to Sirhan Sirhan, an anti-Israeli terrorist and murderer of Bobby Kennedy. Yeesh. Obama didn't endorse Prairie Fire, he endorsed Ayers's A Kind and Just Parent: Children of Juvenile Court, an account of the U.S. juvenile court system, which was published in 1997, and most certainly was not dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan. It's impossible White doesn't know this, so you'd have to call what I just quoted a deliberate attempt to mislead.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's true that McCain distributed several grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi. What the 0-bots fail to mention is that CPRS is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel. Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as Zionist propaganda. In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama. The Center for Palestine Research and Studies is a member of the CIPE Reform Network. In 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2000 the Center received grants from the NED (via CIPE). Similarly in 1995 they received a NED grant via the Jerusalem Fund. [1] The Center for Palestine Research and Studies (CPRS) was founded in March 1993 in response to the need for active Palestinian scholarship on issues related to Palestine. The Center is an independent academic research and policy analysis institution seeking to fully explore and understand new local and regional development and assess their impact on the Palestinians. Because CPRS is independent of political factions, it is in a unique position of being able to serve as a forum for meetings of Palestinian and international researchers from various political backgrounds and ideologies in a free academic and professional atmosphere. The Center for Palestinian Research and Studies acts as an independent think tank for Palestinian policy and strategy community. It seeks to produce research that is objective and based on rigorous and sound methodology. The Center does not adopt political positions other than advocating free, democratic exchange and expression. It is fully committed to information exchange and to publishing research according to professional standards. CPRS encourages outstanding scholars in Palestinian political, strategic, and economic issues to actively participate in the current dialogue regarding the formulation of Palestinian priorities and options and to gather a range of perspectives. http://tinyurl.com/56uw7d
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
I usually learn something from an attack on Obama's ideas. But I'm hitting a dead end on this attack. What is the big picture here? Republicans are using these associations to create fear of Obama, but when McCain is asked outright if he believes Obama hates America he backs down. So the talking point is to create a vague fear phrased in a folksy enough way that there is some deniability. (Palin carefully says Obabma pals around with terrorists, not that he consorts with them.) OK, dirty politics as usual by a campaign that has never had enough detailed ideas to carry their campaign. But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? So are you just doing the whole Republican (I know you have said you don't self-identify as Republican) create a bad feeling about a candidate by guilt by association routine. Are you on board with their agenda? Or are you making a different point? Are you saying that Obama is secretly a terrorist who hates America, and plans to use his presidency to hurt our country? Time to shit of get off the pot. What is your point? Do you believe that Obama was paling around with Ayers because they could trade bomb recipes? Are you saying that you think Obama is a terrorist? WTF? The Republican agenda is clear. Yours is not. Care to clarify? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: It turns out that McCain is treading on tricky ground when he cites the Khalidi case as an example of Obama consorting with terrorist sympathizers. The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank. Yesterday, readers of our blog were witness to the birth of viral meme. An 0bama troll dropped by our post on the LA Times video suppression, and informed us that the Obama-Khalidi association really wasn't any big deal. Otherwise, why would John McCain have given over $400,000 to a Palestinian group that Khalidi worked with? I googled his cut-and-paste comment and discovered that the exact same phrase had been already been posted to the internet over 500 times. That same verbatim phrase now has been posted over 18,000 times! http://www.google.com/search?hl=enclient=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Ae\ n-US%3Aofficialq=During+the+1990s%2C+while+he+served+as+chairman+of+the\ +International+Republican+Institute+%28IRI%29%2C+McCain+distributed+seve\ ral+grants+to+the+Palestinian+research+center+co-founded+by+Khalidi%2C++\ btnG=Search McCain gave money to Khalidi? The truth behind the meme http://nukegingrich.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/mccain-gave-money-to-khali\ di-the-truth-behind-the-meme/Posted on October 30, 2008 by nuke Obviously the O-bots think it's working. The problem is, it is only a distraction, designed to produce an illusion. Aaron Klein, writing at WND, shines the light of truth http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=79441 on the 0bama cover story. It's true that McCain distributed several grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi. What the 0-bots fail to mention is that CPRS is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel. Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as Zionist propaganda. In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama. The Obama-Khalidi connection is one more straw. Is it the one that finally breaks the donkey's back? Free The Tape!!! http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/30/protest-at-the-la-times/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ayers Dedicates book to Sirhan Sirhan, JFK Assassin
Nice one. Thanks for the research and for putting the pieces together Judy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Exclusive: 'HC' Uncovers Bill Ayers Dedications Friday, October 31, 2008 snip Now the book reads like a manifesto of the Weather Underground but the most shocking thing is on the dedication page. Mr. Ayers and his band of terrorists devote the book to, quote, all political prisoners in the U.S., and the book then lists about 100 or so names. Among the names they list a U.S. political prisoner, Sirhan Sirhan. That's right. This college professor, who is just a guy from the neighborhood who never meant to hurt anybody, who bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, New York City police headquarters, dedicated his book to the man who assassinated Robert F. Kennedy. Hannity was 7 years old when RFK was killed and around 13 when Ayers's book was published (in quotes because it appears to have been privately printed, which would be why it wasn't in the NY Public Library). He may not recall that at the time, there was a huge controversy, primarily on the left, about whether Sirhan Sirhan had shot Kennedy. As with JFK's assassination, there were all kinds of conspiracy theories, among them that Sirhan was a Manchurian candidate who had been hypnotized by people who wanted RFK dead (and there were all kinds of groups that feared him) and programmed to be the fall guy for someone else, who was never identified or captured, who had actually fired the shots that killed RFK. Although he confessed to the crime, Sirhan claimed he did not remember the shooting. That Ayers considered Sirhan a political prisoner indicates that he assumed Sirhan was actually innocent. In other words, Ayers was not *applauding* the assassination of RFK by including Sirhan in the list of people to whom the book was dedicated, but rather condemning the U.S. government for having convicted him of a crime he did not commit, presumably to conceal the identity of the real killer. From the next post on this, quoting Bud White: Obama and Ayers, friends and collaborators; Obama endorsed Ayers' book, Ayers dedicated his book to Sirhan Sirhan, an anti-Israeli terrorist and murderer of Bobby Kennedy. Yeesh. Obama didn't endorse Prairie Fire, he endorsed Ayers's A Kind and Just Parent: Children of Juvenile Court, an account of the U.S. juvenile court system, which was published in 1997, and most certainly was not dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan. It's impossible White doesn't know this, so you'd have to call what I just quoted a deliberate attempt to mislead.
[FairfieldLife] Who will still be left here Wed. morning to discuss the winner?
And won't that just say it all? Those with some semblance of self control will be able to spend the last two days of the week gloating, gnashing their teeth, or just breath- ing an incredible sigh of relief that this damned election is finally OVER. Those who shoot their wad of 50 posts in the first few days of this week will not. Some will do it because they always do, and just don't have the self control to NOT post out early. Others will do it so that they don't have to be here and chow down on a hearty dish of crow. But won't it be interesting to see who is still here and who isn't? I look forward to chatting with those who have passed the self control test.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
it is just the dying gasp of opposition against the next President of the USA, Barack Hussein Obama. he is obviously no more a terrorist than those who proclaim him to be. people always resist change, and this time the change is a substantial one; someone on the side of the masses instead of the few. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I usually learn something from an attack on Obama's ideas. But I'm hitting a dead end on this attack. What is the big picture here? Republicans are using these associations to create fear of Obama, but when McCain is asked outright if he believes Obama hates America he backs down. So the talking point is to create a vague fear phrased in a folksy enough way that there is some deniability. (Palin carefully says Obabma pals around with terrorists, not that he consorts with them.) OK, dirty politics as usual by a campaign that has never had enough detailed ideas to carry their campaign. But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? So are you just doing the whole Republican (I know you have said you don't self-identify as Republican) create a bad feeling about a candidate by guilt by association routine. Are you on board with their agenda? Or are you making a different point? Are you saying that Obama is secretly a terrorist who hates America, and plans to use his presidency to hurt our country? Time to shit of get off the pot. What is your point? Do you believe that Obama was paling around with Ayers because they could trade bomb recipes? Are you saying that you think Obama is a terrorist? WTF? The Republican agenda is clear. Yours is not. Care to clarify? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: It turns out that McCain is treading on tricky ground when he cites the Khalidi case as an example of Obama consorting with terrorist sympathizers. The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank. Yesterday, readers of our blog were witness to the birth of viral meme. An 0bama troll dropped by our post on the LA Times video suppression, and informed us that the Obama-Khalidi association really wasn't any big deal. Otherwise, why would John McCain have given over $400,000 to a Palestinian group that Khalidi worked with? I googled his cut-and-paste comment and discovered that the exact same phrase had been already been posted to the internet over 500 times. That same verbatim phrase now has been posted over 18,000 times! http://www.google.com/search?hl=enclient=firefox- arls=org.mozilla%3Ae\ n-US%3Aofficialq=During+the+1990s% 2C+while+he+served+as+chairman+of+the\ +International+Republican+Institute+%28IRI%29% 2C+McCain+distributed+seve\ ral+grants+to+the+Palestinian+research+center+co- founded+by+Khalidi%2C++\ btnG=Search McCain gave money to Khalidi? The truth behind the meme http://nukegingrich.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/mccain-gave-money-to- khali\ di-the-truth-behind-the-meme/Posted on October 30, 2008 by nuke Obviously the O-bots think it's working. The problem is, it is only a distraction, designed to produce an illusion. Aaron Klein, writing at WND, shines the light of truth http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=79441 on the 0bama cover story. It's true that McCain distributed several grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi. What the 0-bots fail to mention is that CPRS is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel. Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as Zionist propaganda. In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama. The Obama-Khalidi connection is one more straw. Is it the one that finally breaks the donkey's back? Free The Tape!!!
[FairfieldLife] John McCain: My Friends: The Musical
The newest video clip from Humanitainment, the makers of Baracky. Hilarious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdBsv0uCT0c
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: It turns out that McCain is treading on tricky ground when he cites the Khalidi case as an example of Obama consorting with terrorist sympathizers. The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank. Yesterday, readers of our blog were witness to the birth of viral meme. An 0bama troll dropped by our post on the LA Times video suppression, and informed us that the Obama-Khalidi association really wasn't any big deal. Otherwise, why would John McCain have given over $400,000 to a Palestinian group that Khalidi worked with? I googled his cut-and-paste comment and discovered that the exact same phrase had been already been posted to the internet over 500 times. That same verbatim phrase now has been posted over 18,000 times! http://www.google.com/search?hl=enclient=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Ae\ n-US%3Aofficialq=During+the+1990s%2C+while+he+served+as+chairman+of+the\ +International+Republican+Institute+%28IRI%29%2C+McCain+distributed+seve\ ral+grants+to+the+Palestinian+research+center+co-founded+by+Khalidi%2C++\ btnG=Search McCain gave money to Khalidi? The truth behind the meme http://nukegingrich.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/mccain-gave-money-to-khali\ di-the-truth-behind-the-meme/Posted on October 30, 2008 by nuke Obviously the O-bots think it's working. The problem is, it is only a distraction, designed to produce an illusion. Aaron Klein, writing at WND, shines the light of truth http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=79441 on the 0bama cover story. It's true that McCain distributed several grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi. What the 0-bots fail to mention is that CPRS is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel. Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as Zionist propaganda. In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama. The Obama-Khalidi connection is one more straw. Is it the one that finally breaks the donkey's back? Free The Tape!!! http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/30/protest-at-the-la-times/ Personally, I have more faith in the intellectual integrity of Glenn Greewald than Whirled Nut Daily or Michelle Malkin. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/neocons/index.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
Well, I think Gov Sarah Palin pretty much summed up the duties of the Vice President when she said that the Vice President becomes the President when the sitting President is no longer able to serve. But it's a fact that it's a violation of Gov. Sarah Palin's rights under the U,S, Constitution when the media make up false and defamatory, sexist rumors and spread them, trying to alter the outcome of a presidential election. Like some respondents on FL do. I think it's breathtakingly stupid enough that Sarah Palin doesn't even know what the hell the Vice President actually does. But, Constitutional scholar that she is not, she has now declared that it may be a threat to her First Amendment rights when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama: http://www.salon. com/opinion/ greenwald/ 2008/10/31/ palin/index. html
[FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
You conveniently forgot to mention that the idiot Palin also said that the Vice President was in charge of the US Senate. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I think Gov Sarah Palin pretty much summed up the duties of the Vice President when she said that the Vice President becomes the President when the sitting President is no longer able to serve. But it's a fact that it's a violation of Gov. Sarah Palin's rights under the U,S, Constitution when the media make up false and defamatory, sexist rumors and spread them, trying to alter the outcome of a presidential election. Like some respondents on FL do. I think it's breathtakingly stupid enough that Sarah Palin doesn't even know what the hell the Vice President actually does. But, Constitutional scholar that she is not, she has now declared that it may be a threat to her First Amendment rights when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama: http://www.salon. com/opinion/ greenwald/ 2008/10/31/ palin/index. html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Notice the right wing losers here are each going bonkers
John wrote: Notice the right wing losers here are each going bonkers As the chickens come home ... Obama? This is outrageous. And John is calling others going 'bonkers'? As the chickens come home ... They never really looked in the mirror and faced what they saw. And now at the last moments here come the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth. And no one sheds a tear for them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
Vice President was in charge of the US Senate. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. The third point, from a Republican perspective, is that Ayers is not just somebody working for the betterment of education; he's working for what *he* considers the betterment of education, which right- wingers find appalling because it involves, they claim, the indoctrination of students with left- wing ideas. I'm *not* in sympathy with this complaint; I think it would be all to the better if students were exposed to left-wing ideas, since I'm a left-winger myself. But if one is a right-winger, it's a reasonable objection to Obama's partnership with Ayers in terms of educational theory and practice. The notion that Obama's association with Ayers means he's somehow in sympathy with terrorism is, of course, totally absurd, designed to appeal to nonthinkers. But there are also entirely legitimate objections.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Governator' Schwarzenegger mocks 'skinny' Obama!
On Nov 1, 2008, at 7:20 AM, boo_lives wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's about time someone knocks him off this giant pedestal he's been on! Ha, ha, good one Arnold!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081031/ts_alt_afp/usvotemccainschwarzenegger_081031231405 Yeah, we wouldn't want a healthy guy as president. Better a guy known for taking anabolic steroids for yrs in order to get an artificially and weird looking muscled body, not to mention a disturbed hormonal system and shrunken testicles for life. Yeah, nothing says macho like shrunken testicles. Not to mention that he's had a pacemaker for over a decade, on account of all those steroids. Some action hero! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Baracky: The Movie - and Baracky II
Delightfully entertaining and revealing, through the primaries with Hillary to the campaign with McCain - Obama taking the day! Well worth your time... Baracky - The Movie [Hillary vs Barack - run time 3 1/2 minutes]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4sDlVFlOfkfeature=related Baracky II - [McCain vs Barack - 5 1/2 minutes]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fNgA5xLxao
[FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vice President was in charge of the US Senate. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States
[FairfieldLife] Re: EEG - Buddhist Meditation compared toTM meditation.
I meant to comment on this post when it first appeared but I was unable to as I was over that week (or banned for overposting, can't remember which). I was a student at MIU when Nova ran this show. MIU faculty taped the show and then showed it to us in the Learning Center (that big, round building, I think). What struck me was something that no one else seemed to notice -- not faculty, not students -- was that the TM SUBJECTS THAT WERE BEING STUDIED WERE INSTRUCTED TO BE SUPINE, that is half-vertical, when they hooked them up to the monitoring devices. Well, I don't know about anyone else but those aren't the instructions for TM; TM is done in the sitting up position and if they were studying the effects of TM on people practising TM in that position, they weren't researching TM but something else. No wonder they got different results. Anyway, I tried to point that out but no one thought it very important. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many a year ago the US Public Broadcasting System's Nova ran a show on TM. Jerry Jarvis was the head then. The producer of Nova was skeptical of the brainwave coherence measurements the TMO was taking so he asked to have his coherence measured. He did as well as our sidhas. Candice Borland, Ph.D. psychology, University of Texas said on a residence course that of course the Nova producer's brain waves would be coherent. What would you expect from someone obviously highly evolved enough to be the producer of Nova. On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 17, 2008, at 11:46 AM, off_world_beings wrote: The primary difference between controls and experimental group for the Buddhist meditators was found in gamma EEG synchrony and power. Gamma waves are normally interpreted as a sign of concentration. Incorrect. High-Amplitude Gamma Waves are a sign of consciousness and surprised recognition, that is experiencing directly the basis of awareness in a state of constant amazement (but beyond the amazer and amazement). The subjective experience is that of resting in a nondual luminous vacuity. It correlates to samadhi in Patanjali yogins and the same signature is found in Buddhist yogins (e.g. the above graph). The primary difference is that the above posted EEG of a western Buddhist yogin in samadhi, he went, at will, into the state and stayed there for *four hours *. The state naturally and spontaneously increased as time went on. It's been independently replicated 4 times last time I heard. The TM EEG is fleeting, brief and cannot be duplicated at will for long periods of time and consists of coherence levels the same as normally seen in waking state. It's actually a snippet of one meditators session, not an entire session. It has not been replicated. There are a host of other differences, but that should suffice to explain: one represents a fragile and shallow, common state, the other a lasting and powerful state of consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Classy Philly: Utley-Oops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwOroBj13eE At about :34 in... From commenter rockstafarian: So a kid comes to my door last night dressed as a baseball player. When I opened the door, he said, Trick or fuckin treat. I said, Oh, you must be Chase Utley - nice custom. Kid says, What was your 1st fuckin clue!
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. -snip- i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. that is completely absurd, and certainly does not reflect the christian values of forgiveness, compassion and self-reflection. it is a really ugly spin. what is the next step? we draw up a list of each of the major candidates' associations from the time they reached 18 'til now, match each association against criteria that define each association as palling around or not, and then take a microscope to each of the people's lives deemed to be palling around with the candidate in question? pardon me, but what a load of bullshit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. -snip- i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. FAIL. That may be what you *infer*, but it's not what I said *implies*, sorry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. -snip- i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. FAIL. That may be what you *infer*, but it's not what I said *implies*, sorry. i wasn't talking about your comments necessarily, but i am sure you get the gist of what i am saying, editorially perfect or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
On Nov 1, 2008, at 9:49 AM, feste37 wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. And don't forget the classic, Get in there and make policy... nonsense. I'm going to miss Sarah after this. Bet the folks on SNL will too. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY taught *The Supreme Doctrine* for modernity!
Swami Lachsmanjoo was a great friend of the Marshy's, as the photo cited proves beyond a doubt. Jerry Jarvis said about this photo that the Swami was ecstatic when the TTC course visited his ashram. http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/images/lakman01.jpg boo wrote: There's also a photo of MMY holding hands with muktinanda, who's been proven to have been molesting underage girls in his ashram, which according to willy's political logic means MMY was palling around with pedophiles and was probably one himself and by association so was laksmanjoo, so I don't get why willy is so keen on this pervert? Ad hominem is the second to last resort of someone who is losing a debate and is unable to respond with legitimacy. They all meditated together for hours, each using their very own bija mantra given to them by the Marshy. Now that's Trika! According to thousands of posts by willy, MMY did not give but sold mantras to fools willing to fall for his lies about getting enlightened in 5 yrs, so all of these people at this mediation were fools, which means Trika is for fools. Maybe so, so how much did you pay? There's nothing wrong with being a fool and paying for instruction - but only a rascal would try to trash the Marshy for setting up a yoga camp - get a grip, boo! According to John Hughes, (TTC Rishikesh-Kashmere 1968), the Lachsman practiced a meditation that was just like TM and he was checked by the Marshy himself. Glad to see willy believes everything that TM leaders say. The Swami Lachsmanjoo wasn't a 'TM leader', but from what I've read, he was a very informed teacher, and the last in a line of very illustrious teachers of the Kashmere Shivaism. Everyone knows that the primary yoga technique in Kashmere Shivaism is a meditation on the Transcedental Person utilizaing a mnemonic device called in Sanskrit a 'bija mantra' - this isn't new information. In fact, according to John Hughe's son, Vivek, the designated successor to Swami Lachsmanjoo, the Swami often refered to the Marshy as his 'meditation teacher.' The Swami reccomended meditation to all his students. He also believes everything children of TM teachers say - I guess because of his belief that genes are everything. Vivek is the designated successor to the Swami - Vivek was with the Swami since the time that Vivek recieved his walking mantra from the Marshy in 1968, forty years ago. According to my sources, all the students of the Swami Lachsmanjoo were transcendental meditators. These are the facts. As for the Trika doctrine, it's very similar to Shankara's Vedanta, which is a form of the Vasubandhu 'Consciousness Only' school. All similar. They were ALL transcendentaly meditating. All the Upanshadic sages were transcendentalists. There's only One Transcendental. That must explain why all religions and spiritual traditions get along and respect each other so much - like in those famous TTC tapes in which MMY criticizes every other form of meditation or spiritual tradition that he is asked about. They all forgot how to transcend - even the Swami Lachsman had to be instructed in the meditation technique. Lots of learned people know all about the transcendental *doctrine*, but lots of people forgot how to actually transcend - that's the ticket, to 'go beyond' discursive intellect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
You laid out the different positions pretty fairly. Given that the president of the United States has to work with the world's despots and dictators to advance the agenda of the US, I think that Obama's ability to work on a specific project with a guy with a past like Ayers is an asset. The question is, does he condemn the guy's past activities right? That doesn't mean he should shun the guy who may be helpful in a current project that has nothing to do with his past. Let's say a guy goes to jail for murder. If he does his time and gets out, should every politician shun him forever on any positive project he works on for the rest of his life? No politician makes it through this gauntlet. Obama hasn't chosen to go this route in attacking Mccain, but he certainly could. Our past president's can't even pass this test with their support for Saddham and Osama when it served our country's purpose. Before it didn't. Our last president don't just pal around with dictators, he claimed to see their soul. Bush holding hands with the King of Saudi Arabia, where the 9-11 hijackers came from, is a vivid image of what president's have to do to get things done in the world. So I guess I am concluding that harboring a grudge about someone's past may be a tidy way to live for people outside public office, but it isn't gunna be that easy for anyone with real power. I am confident that Obama had these associations for the right and not the wrong reasons. I have no problem with the church he went to. (aside from the mock cannibalistic ritual which is the same problem I have with all churches!) It was a black church and raised black issue with a black perspective. OK, I guess that is because Obama IS black. If Obama gets elected, I hope he continues to work with everyone around him on positive projects to help our country. If he brings out the best in a guy who was a past radical, that seems like a plus. I am comfortable that Obama didn't view his association as important, but that he views the work they did together as having value. The next president of the US is going to have to face Pakistan, Iran and plenty of countries whose populations have a lot of American haters. I hope he can bring out the best from paling around with them to help turn our relationships around. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. The third point, from a Republican perspective, is that Ayers is not just somebody working for the betterment of education; he's working for what *he* considers the betterment of education, which right- wingers find appalling because it involves, they claim, the indoctrination of students with left- wing ideas. I'm *not* in sympathy with this complaint; I think it would be all to the better if students were exposed to left-wing ideas, since I'm a left-winger myself. But if one is a right-winger, it's a reasonable objection to Obama's partnership with Ayers in terms of educational theory and practice. The notion that Obama's association with Ayers means he's somehow in sympathy with terrorism is, of course, totally absurd, designed to appeal to nonthinkers. But there are also entirely legitimate objections.
[FairfieldLife] Ego and mouth
Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else. Friday, October 31, 2008 [Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist] http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell Ego and Mouth by Thomas Sowell After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth? Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else. Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise-- whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team-- is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated. The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world. The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents. The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity. This is our time! he proclaimed. And I will change the world. But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon. For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of spreading the wealth, is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries. The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law. After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble. Senator Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion. People who think Governor Sarah Palin didn't handle some gotcha questions well in a couple of interviews show no interest in how she compares to the Democrats' Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden. Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media like. Not only is he a liberal's liberal, he answers questions far more glibly than Governor Palin-- grossly inaccurately in many cases, but glibly. Moreover, this is a long-standing pattern with Biden. When he was running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination back in 1987, someone in the audience asked him what law school he attended and how well he did. Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, I think I have a much higher IQ than you do. He added, I went to law school on a full academic scholarship and ended up in the top half of the class. But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn't finish in the 'top half' of his class. He was 76th out of 85. Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown. Let us not forget that the Roman Empire did decline and fall, blighting the lives of millions for centuries.
[FairfieldLife] Re: MMY taught *The Supreme Doctrine* for modernity!
Ad hominem is the second to last resort of someone who is losing a debate and is unable to respond with legitimacy. Kind of rough on McCain Richard, but I do agree. McCain's personal attacks of Obama has been a sign of his lack of legitimate argument on issues. I didn't expect you to give such an insightful attack on McCain, but well done! They all forgot how to transcend - even the Swami Lachsman had to be instructed in the meditation technique. Lots of learned people know all about the transcendental *doctrine*, but lots of people forgot how to actually transcend - that's the ticket, to 'go beyond' discursive intellect. What happened to everyone who thinks thoughts is meditating Richard? How could anyone forget this if everyone is transcending all the time by thinking thoughts? They all forgot how to transcend is the parroting of one of Maharishi's most obnoxiously arrogant assertions. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Swami Lachsmanjoo was a great friend of the Marshy's, as the photo cited proves beyond a doubt. Jerry Jarvis said about this photo that the Swami was ecstatic when the TTC course visited his ashram. http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/images/lakman01.jpg boo wrote: There's also a photo of MMY holding hands with muktinanda, who's been proven to have been molesting underage girls in his ashram, which according to willy's political logic means MMY was palling around with pedophiles and was probably one himself and by association so was laksmanjoo, so I don't get why willy is so keen on this pervert? Ad hominem is the second to last resort of someone who is losing a debate and is unable to respond with legitimacy. They all meditated together for hours, each using their very own bija mantra given to them by the Marshy. Now that's Trika! According to thousands of posts by willy, MMY did not give but sold mantras to fools willing to fall for his lies about getting enlightened in 5 yrs, so all of these people at this mediation were fools, which means Trika is for fools. Maybe so, so how much did you pay? There's nothing wrong with being a fool and paying for instruction - but only a rascal would try to trash the Marshy for setting up a yoga camp - get a grip, boo! According to John Hughes, (TTC Rishikesh-Kashmere 1968), the Lachsman practiced a meditation that was just like TM and he was checked by the Marshy himself. Glad to see willy believes everything that TM leaders say. The Swami Lachsmanjoo wasn't a 'TM leader', but from what I've read, he was a very informed teacher, and the last in a line of very illustrious teachers of the Kashmere Shivaism. Everyone knows that the primary yoga technique in Kashmere Shivaism is a meditation on the Transcedental Person utilizaing a mnemonic device called in Sanskrit a 'bija mantra' - this isn't new information. In fact, according to John Hughe's son, Vivek, the designated successor to Swami Lachsmanjoo, the Swami often refered to the Marshy as his 'meditation teacher.' The Swami reccomended meditation to all his students. He also believes everything children of TM teachers say - I guess because of his belief that genes are everything. Vivek is the designated successor to the Swami - Vivek was with the Swami since the time that Vivek recieved his walking mantra from the Marshy in 1968, forty years ago. According to my sources, all the students of the Swami Lachsmanjoo were transcendental meditators. These are the facts. As for the Trika doctrine, it's very similar to Shankara's Vedanta, which is a form of the Vasubandhu 'Consciousness Only' school. All similar. They were ALL transcendentaly meditating. All the Upanshadic sages were transcendentalists. There's only One Transcendental. That must explain why all religions and spiritual traditions get along and respect each other so much - like in those famous TTC tapes in which MMY criticizes every other form of meditation or spiritual tradition that he is asked about. They all forgot how to transcend - even the Swami Lachsman had to be instructed in the meditation technique. Lots of learned people know all about the transcendental *doctrine*, but lots of people forgot how to actually transcend - that's the ticket, to 'go beyond' discursive intellect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ego and mouth
For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of spreading the wealth, is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else. Friday, October 31, 2008 [Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist] http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell Ego and Mouth by Thomas Sowell After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth? Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else. Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise-- whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team-- is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated. The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world. The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents. The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity. This is our time! he proclaimed. And I will change the world. But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon. For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of spreading the wealth, is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries. The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law. After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble. Senator Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion. People who think Governor Sarah Palin didn't handle some gotcha questions well in a couple of interviews show no interest in how she compares to the Democrats' Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden. Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media like. Not only is he a liberal's liberal, he answers questions far more glibly than Governor Palin-- grossly inaccurately in many cases, but glibly. Moreover, this is a long-standing pattern with Biden. When he was running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination back in 1987, someone in the audience asked him what law school he attended and how well he did. Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, I think I have a much higher IQ than you do. He added, I went to law school on a full academic scholarship and ended up in the top half of the class. But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn't finish in the 'top half' of his class. He was 76th out of 85. Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown. Let us not forget that the Roman Empire did decline and fall, blighting the lives of millions for centuries.
[FairfieldLife] De Facto Censorship on FFL (was Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!)
You know, it isn't a First Amendment issue per se, but it should be noted that some of the Obama supporters here are promoting a kind of de facto censorship, just as Palin is. Barry, Vaj, do.rflex, Sal, Ruth, and Bhairitu (I'm sure I've forgotten a couple) have all promoted the notion that people should block raunchydog's and my posts, to keep them from seeing criticisms of Obama and his supporters. This is of particular benefit to Barry, who has spearheaded this movement. (He's been at it for many years.) For example, he can claim that I made up the statistic about the number of rapes reported in Wasilla during Palin's mayoralty. Readers will have seen that claim, but those who have chosen to block my posts will not have seen the URL I provided that documents my statistic. As I think most readers here know, Barry's stock in trade is vicious attacks on me. Those who go along with Barry's urging and don't read my posts, however, will not be aware that his attacks consist primarily of falsehoods, because they won't see the rebuttals. Ruth the Race-baiter doesn't want people to read my or raunchydog's posts because she doesn't want them to know how bogus her claim is that the Obama illustration on raunchydog's profile page is racist. And Barry, of course, doesn't want anyone to know that his claim that the illustration portrays Obama as Stepin Fetchit is even more blatantly false. Like Barry, do.rflex doesn't want people to know that my statistic on rape in Wasilla is well documented, or that his own attempt to portray sexual assaults in Wasilla as equivalent to rapes is bogus. Sal doesn't want anybody to know how many gross factual errors she makes, especially in connection with politics, so she espouses not reading my posts as well. Vaj likes to lie about me and raunchydog too, so of course he doesn't want folks to read our posts. Bhairitu doesn't like the kind of reasoned criticisms of his conspiracy theories that I present. He'd prefer that readers blocked those. These people, in other words, are suggesting that you should *cut yourself off from other points of view* and read only what *they* have to say. How are these people any different in principle from Sarah Palin, who would prefer that the media not be permitted to criticize her and McCain? Are raunchydog and I somehow infringing on the First Amendment rights of the Obama supporters here by posting our dissenting views? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it's breathtakingly stupid enough that Sarah Palin doesn't even know what the hell the Vice President actually does. But, Constitutional scholar that she is not, she has now declared that it may be a threat to her First Amendment rights when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/index.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
I'm going to miss Sarah after this. Are you going somewhere - I was wondering when you were going to get out of the trailer park. But from what I've read, Gov. Palin is going to be around a lot getting ready for the next election. You should be getting ready too, and get some smarts about all the issues, that is, if you plan on voting intelligently. At present, your vote looks like a spoiler vote. Are you still thinking about voting for Ralph Nader? Bet the folks on SNL will too. How much would you be willing to wager? _._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ayers Dedicates book to Sirhan Sirhan, JFK Assassin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hannity was 7 years old when RFK was killed and around 13 when Ayers's book was published (in quotes because it appears to have been privately printed, which would be why it wasn't in the NY Public Library). That's really a hoot. Obama was 8 years old when Ayers set off bombs. He may not recall that at the time, there was a huge controversy, primarily on the left, about whether Sirhan Sirhan had shot Kennedy. As with JFK's assassination, there were all kinds of conspiracy theories, among them that Sirhan was a Manchurian candidate who had been hypnotized by people who wanted RFK dead (and there were all kinds of groups that feared him) and programmed to be the fall guy for someone else, who was never identified or captured, who had actually fired the shots that killed RFK. Although he confessed to the crime, Sirhan claimed he did not remember the shooting. That Ayers considered Sirhan a political prisoner indicates that he assumed Sirhan was actually innocent. In other words, Ayers was not *applauding* the assassination of RFK by including Sirhan in the list of people to whom the book was dedicated, but rather condemning the U.S. government for having convicted him of a crime he did not commit, presumably to conceal the identity of the real killer. I remember the Manchurian candidate story. Regardless, Sirhan pulled trigger and many witnessed it. The far left, and the likes of Ayers, used Sirhan's lack of memory of his crime to manufacture a conspiracy theory, casting suspicion on the rightwing of our government who they feared would win the election. The much-hated Republican, Nixon, beat Humphrey by a landslide. The left believed that had RFK won the primary he may have had a chance to beat Nixon. The left couldn't bear the loss of RFK. He was their hope for ending an unjust Vietnam War, an example of American imperialism. At the time, Vietnam whipped Anti-American sentiment into a frenzy. Ayers wallowed in it and still does and I suspect Obama's friends residing under the bus, Wright, and Pfleger do as well. Was Sirhan a Manchurian Candidate? No, that title fits Obama. From the next post on this, quoting Bud White: Obama and Ayers, friends and collaborators; Obama endorsed Ayers' book, Ayers dedicated his book to Sirhan Sirhan, an anti-Israeli terrorist and murderer of Bobby Kennedy. Yeesh. Obama didn't endorse Prairie Fire, he endorsed Ayers's A Kind and Just Parent: Children of Juvenile Court, an account of the U.S. juvenile court system, which was published in 1997, and most certainly was not dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan. It's impossible White doesn't know this, so you'd have to call what I just quoted a deliberate attempt to mislead. You're correct. Obama was only 8 when Ayers wrote Prairie Fire. White tries to connect too many dots. Yet, the dots remain.
[FairfieldLife] De Facto Censorship on FFL (was Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!)
Thanks for calling out members of the thought police on FF Life. My sentiments exactly. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, it isn't a First Amendment issue per se, but it should be noted that some of the Obama supporters here are promoting a kind of de facto censorship, just as Palin is. Barry, Vaj, do.rflex, Sal, Ruth, and Bhairitu (I'm sure I've forgotten a couple) have all promoted the notion that people should block raunchydog's and my posts, to keep them from seeing criticisms of Obama and his supporters. This is of particular benefit to Barry, who has spearheaded this movement. (He's been at it for many years.) For example, he can claim that I made up the statistic about the number of rapes reported in Wasilla during Palin's mayoralty. Readers will have seen that claim, but those who have chosen to block my posts will not have seen the URL I provided that documents my statistic. As I think most readers here know, Barry's stock in trade is vicious attacks on me. Those who go along with Barry's urging and don't read my posts, however, will not be aware that his attacks consist primarily of falsehoods, because they won't see the rebuttals. Ruth the Race-baiter doesn't want people to read my or raunchydog's posts because she doesn't want them to know how bogus her claim is that the Obama illustration on raunchydog's profile page is racist. And Barry, of course, doesn't want anyone to know that his claim that the illustration portrays Obama as Stepin Fetchit is even more blatantly false. Like Barry, do.rflex doesn't want people to know that my statistic on rape in Wasilla is well documented, or that his own attempt to portray sexual assaults in Wasilla as equivalent to rapes is bogus. Sal doesn't want anybody to know how many gross factual errors she makes, especially in connection with politics, so she espouses not reading my posts as well. Vaj likes to lie about me and raunchydog too, so of course he doesn't want folks to read our posts. Bhairitu doesn't like the kind of reasoned criticisms of his conspiracy theories that I present. He'd prefer that readers blocked those. These people, in other words, are suggesting that you should *cut yourself off from other points of view* and read only what *they* have to say. How are these people any different in principle from Sarah Palin, who would prefer that the media not be permitted to criticize her and McCain? Are raunchydog and I somehow infringing on the First Amendment rights of the Obama supporters here by posting our dissenting views? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: I think it's breathtakingly stupid enough that Sarah Palin doesn't even know what the hell the Vice President actually does. But, Constitutional scholar that she is not, she has now declared that it may be a threat to her First Amendment rights when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/31/palin/index.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ayers Dedicates book to Sirhan Sirhan, JFK Assassin
Was Sirhan a Manchurian Candidate? No, that title fits Obama. So who is hypnotizing Obama to carry out a murder on a plitical leader? Did you see the movie? Do you know what this phrase means? Are you no just flinging any feces within reach now Raunchy? I look forward to you contributions after the election Raunchy. I dig your prolific posting energy and hope you are not a one trick, election only poster here. But you are really losing me on these irrational attacks on Obama. They don't even make any sense. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Hannity was 7 years old when RFK was killed and around 13 when Ayers's book was published (in quotes because it appears to have been privately printed, which would be why it wasn't in the NY Public Library). That's really a hoot. Obama was 8 years old when Ayers set off bombs. He may not recall that at the time, there was a huge controversy, primarily on the left, about whether Sirhan Sirhan had shot Kennedy. As with JFK's assassination, there were all kinds of conspiracy theories, among them that Sirhan was a Manchurian candidate who had been hypnotized by people who wanted RFK dead (and there were all kinds of groups that feared him) and programmed to be the fall guy for someone else, who was never identified or captured, who had actually fired the shots that killed RFK. Although he confessed to the crime, Sirhan claimed he did not remember the shooting. That Ayers considered Sirhan a political prisoner indicates that he assumed Sirhan was actually innocent. In other words, Ayers was not *applauding* the assassination of RFK by including Sirhan in the list of people to whom the book was dedicated, but rather condemning the U.S. government for having convicted him of a crime he did not commit, presumably to conceal the identity of the real killer. I remember the Manchurian candidate story. Regardless, Sirhan pulled trigger and many witnessed it. The far left, and the likes of Ayers, used Sirhan's lack of memory of his crime to manufacture a conspiracy theory, casting suspicion on the rightwing of our government who they feared would win the election. The much-hated Republican, Nixon, beat Humphrey by a landslide. The left believed that had RFK won the primary he may have had a chance to beat Nixon. The left couldn't bear the loss of RFK. He was their hope for ending an unjust Vietnam War, an example of American imperialism. At the time, Vietnam whipped Anti-American sentiment into a frenzy. Ayers wallowed in it and still does and I suspect Obama's friends residing under the bus, Wright, and Pfleger do as well. Was Sirhan a Manchurian Candidate? No, that title fits Obama. From the next post on this, quoting Bud White: Obama and Ayers, friends and collaborators; Obama endorsed Ayers' book, Ayers dedicated his book to Sirhan Sirhan, an anti-Israeli terrorist and murderer of Bobby Kennedy. Yeesh. Obama didn't endorse Prairie Fire, he endorsed Ayers's A Kind and Just Parent: Children of Juvenile Court, an account of the U.S. juvenile court system, which was published in 1997, and most certainly was not dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan. It's impossible White doesn't know this, so you'd have to call what I just quoted a deliberate attempt to mislead. You're correct. Obama was only 8 when Ayers wrote Prairie Fire. White tries to connect too many dots. Yet, the dots remain.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. -snip- i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. FAIL. That may be what you *infer*, but it's not what I said *implies*, sorry. i wasn't talking about your comments necessarily, Yes, you were. You quoted my remarks and my agreement with the views I outlined. Then you said, The way these accusations are ALWAYS framed... (emphasis added). But what you went on to claim wasn't how I had framed the accusations at all. Have some self-respect, ed11, and take responsibility for your own statements. but i am sure you get the gist of what i am saying, editorially perfect or not. Has nothing to do with editorial perfection. I'm saying you read into my comments something that wasn't there and missed what was there.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. that is completely absurd, and certainly does not reflect the christian values of forgiveness, compassion and self-reflection. it is a really ugly spin. what is the next step? we draw up a list of each of the major candidates' associations from the time they reached 18 'til now, match each association against criteria that define each association as palling around or not, and then take a microscope to each of the people's lives deemed to be palling around with the candidate in question? pardon me, but what a load of bullshit. As a point of passing historical interest, from the token Cathar freak on this forum, this load of bullshit was first popularized by a man named Domenico Guzman, and the brotherhood of Dominican monks he founded, otherwise known as the Office Of The Holy Inquisition. All trials held by the Inquisition were pretty much a foregone conclusion; if you were called before the Inquisition, you were guilty. So the *point* of the trials was not to punish the guilty. It was to provide a public forum as, tortured into doing whatever they were told to do, the heretics named names. That is, they were made to confess the names of pretty much everyone they knew or had ever known. And the reason for extracting these names was to inspire terror in the general population, because the rule of law under the Inquisition was that if you knew a person who had been condemned as a heretic, you were a heretic, too. Done deal. It didn't even matter if you had just talked to him on the street, you were as guilty as he was, and as liable to be sent to the stake. It was a brilliant form of mindfuck then, and it is now. The purpose of this tactic was to make the population afraid to even talk with folks who might have heretical ideas. Me, I want as leader of my country someone who is unafraid to sit down at a table with ANYONE, and talk things over with them. I want that leader to actually *listen* as the other person speaks, and try to figure out where he's coming from. And I want that leader to weigh what the other person says in coming to a reasoned and rational decision. To suggest that it is bad to talk to someone who thinks differently than you do is to suggest that it is bad to think.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ego and mouth
Ego and mouth TEHRAN, Iran — Three weeks ago, a hard-line cleric close to Iran's president gloated publicly that the world financial crisis was God's punishment on the United States. The laughter, however, was short-lived. Read more: 'Iran feels economic pain as oil prices fall' By Ali Akbar Dareini Associated Press, October 31, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/6bhb5b For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of spreading the wealth, is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries. For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of spreading the wealth, is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries. --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ ... wrote: Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else. Friday, October 31, 2008 [Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist] http://townhall. com/columnists/ ThomasSowell Ego and Mouth by Thomas Sowell After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth? Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else. Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise-- whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team-- is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated. The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world. The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents. The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity. This is our time! he proclaimed. And I will change the world. But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon. For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of spreading the wealth, is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries. The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law. After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble. Senator Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion. People who think Governor Sarah Palin didn't handle some gotcha questions well in a couple of interviews show no interest in how she compares to the Democrats' Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden. Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media like. Not only is he a liberal's liberal, he answers questions far more glibly than Governor Palin-- grossly inaccurately in many cases, but glibly. Moreover, this is a long-standing pattern with Biden. When he was running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination back in 1987, someone in the audience asked him what law school he attended and how well he did. Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, I think I have a much higher IQ than you do. He added, I went to
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
Me, I want as leader of my country someone who is unafraid to sit down at a table with ANYONE, and talk things over with them. I want that leader to actually *listen* as the other person speaks, and try to figure out where he's coming from. And I want that leader to weigh what the other person says in coming to a reasoned and rational decision. To suggest that it is bad to talk to someone who thinks differently than you do is to suggest that it is bad to think. Nicely put! That was an interesting connection with techniques from the inquisition Turq. The war on terror has taken on so many qualities from that dark past hasn't it? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. that is completely absurd, and certainly does not reflect the christian values of forgiveness, compassion and self-reflection. it is a really ugly spin. what is the next step? we draw up a list of each of the major candidates' associations from the time they reached 18 'til now, match each association against criteria that define each association as palling around or not, and then take a microscope to each of the people's lives deemed to be palling around with the candidate in question? pardon me, but what a load of bullshit. As a point of passing historical interest, from the token Cathar freak on this forum, this load of bullshit was first popularized by a man named Domenico Guzman, and the brotherhood of Dominican monks he founded, otherwise known as the Office Of The Holy Inquisition. All trials held by the Inquisition were pretty much a foregone conclusion; if you were called before the Inquisition, you were guilty. So the *point* of the trials was not to punish the guilty. It was to provide a public forum as, tortured into doing whatever they were told to do, the heretics named names. That is, they were made to confess the names of pretty much everyone they knew or had ever known. And the reason for extracting these names was to inspire terror in the general population, because the rule of law under the Inquisition was that if you knew a person who had been condemned as a heretic, you were a heretic, too. Done deal. It didn't even matter if you had just talked to him on the street, you were as guilty as he was, and as liable to be sent to the stake. It was a brilliant form of mindfuck then, and it is now. The purpose of this tactic was to make the population afraid to even talk with folks who might have heretical ideas. Me, I want as leader of my country someone who is unafraid to sit down at a table with ANYONE, and talk things over with them. I want that leader to actually *listen* as the other person speaks, and try to figure out where he's coming from. And I want that leader to weigh what the other person says in coming to a reasoned and rational decision. To suggest that it is bad to talk to someone who thinks differently than you do is to suggest that it is bad to think.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 1, 2008, at 9:49 AM, feste37 wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. And don't forget the classic, Get in there and make policy... nonsense. I'm going to miss Sarah after this. Bet the folks on SNL will too. Possibly because she'll be competing against them in the ratings. I'm predicting that (assuming an Obama win) when this is all over, Sarah Palin will go back to Alaska and choose not to run in the next Gubernatorial election. Instead, I expect her to get her own national talk TV show, and use that as platform to push her candidacy for President in the next election. You heard it here first. Lou Valentino, eat your heart out. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
Turq wrote: I want as leader of my country someone who is unafraid to sit down at a table with ANYONE, and talk things over with them. Yeah, that's the ticket - sit down with Osama bin Laden and 'talk things over'. Then you would be guilty by association! You're not even making any sense, Turq.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
Instead, I expect her to get her own national talk TV show, and use that as platform to push her candidacy for President in the next election. I'm hoping Sarah moves to NY state, runs for the Senate, and boots out Hillary. :) Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only love. - Amma --- On Sat, 11/1/08, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!! To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, November 1, 2008, 11:37 AM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 1, 2008, at 9:49 AM, feste37 wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. And don't forget the classic, Get in there and make policy... nonsense. I'm going to miss Sarah after this. Bet the folks on SNL will too. Possibly because she'll be competing against them in the ratings. I'm predicting that (assuming an Obama win) when this is all over, Sarah Palin will go back to Alaska and choose not to run in the next Gubernatorial election. Instead, I expect her to get her own national talk TV show, and use that as platform to push her candidacy for President in the next election. You heard it here first. Lou Valentino, eat your heart out. :-) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ayers Dedicates book to Sirhan Sirhan, JFK Assassin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip In other words, Ayers was not *applauding* the assassination of RFK by including Sirhan in the list of people to whom the book was dedicated, but rather condemning the U.S. government for having convicted him of a crime he did not commit, presumably to conceal the identity of the real killer. I remember the Manchurian candidate story. Regardless, Sirhan pulled trigger and many witnessed it. The far left, and the likes of Ayers, used Sirhan's lack of memory of his crime to manufacture a conspiracy theory, casting suspicion on the rightwing of our government who they feared would win the election. All true, although the conspiracy theories were quite sincerely held, at least on the part of most. But there are still some questions about whether Sirhan actually fired the shots that killed RFK. His guilt is likely but not a slam-dunk. In any case, my point was that *Ayers* at that time almost certainly believed Sirhan was not the killer, and did not include him in the list of people to whom the book was dedicated because he approved of RFK's assassination, contrary to Hannity's suggestion, but because he thought Sirhan had been railroaded to hide the identity of the real assassins. Basically, the dedication of Ayers's book as Hannity portrays it is a red herring.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. Dictionary.com disagrees with you, feste37: Preside Pre*side\, v. i. [imp. p. p. Presided; p. pr. vb. n. Presiding.] [L. praesidere; prae before + sedere to sit: cf. F. pr['e]sider. See Sit.] 1. To be set, or to sit, in the place of authority; to occupy the place of president, chairman, moderator, director, etc.; to direct, control, and regulate, as chief officer; as, to preside at a public meeting; to preside over the senate. 2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over. Some o'er the public magazines preside. --Dryden. and the thesaurus at the same website makes the case stronger: Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Main Entry: preside Part of Speech: verb Definition: be in authority Synonyms: administer, advise, be at the head of, be in driver's seat, call the signals, carry on, chair, conduct, control, direct, do the honors, govern, handle, head, head up, keep, lead, manage, officiate, operate, ordain, oversee, pull the strings, run, run the show, sit on top of, supervise Antonyms: follow, serve --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams willytex@ wrote: Vice President was in charge of the US Senate. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip To suggest that it is bad to talk to someone who thinks differently than you do is to suggest that it is bad to think. Barry Wright, Master of Inadvertent Irony. This is the fellow who boasts repeatedly of not talking to me or even reading my posts and has urged other readers over and over not to do so either.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Kidney disease and high-fructose corn syrup.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I would have thought by now the mega drink corporations would be offering just straight sugar non corn syrup versions. You are aware that using high-fructose corn syrup is a relatively recent innovation, as of 1985, right? The corn syrup, of course, is vastly cheaper than cane sugar, so they'd be very unlikely to switch back unless corn syrup is conclusively proven to be harmful. Doing a search I believe it was Coca-Cola that was going attempt that but it is not on the shelves You may be thinking of what they do every spring, which is to sell a limited amount of Coke using cane sugar for two or three weeks before Passover (Jewish law forbids the consumption of anything grain-based during the eight days of the holiday). It sells out quickly, however, so you have to grab it right away. For more, including how to recognize the kosher Coke products: http://offthebroiler.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/kosher-for- passover-coke-its-the-real-thing-baby/ http://tinyurl.com/yp9sqv
[FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Possibly because she'll be competing against them in the ratings. I'm predicting that (assuming an Obama win) when this is all over, Sarah Palin will go back to Alaska and choose not to run in the next Gubernatorial election. Instead, I expect her to get her own national talk TV show, and use that as platform to push her candidacy for President in the next election. You heard it here first. Lou Valentino, eat your heart out. :-) BTW, I'm serious about this. I think that she's developed a real *taste* for being in front of the cameras and playing dressup. And a phone-in TV talk show would be the perfect forum for her, because her handlers could filter the callers and feed her soft- balls and obvious Leftist crackpots to play off of. We've got a few SciFi freaks here. Has anyone read Norman Spinrad's seminal Bug Jack Barron? Here's a short review, although the reference to long out of print does not seem to be true, because my Google search also brought up a current listing on Amazon: http://www.sfsite.com/08b/bj134.htm http://www.amazon.com/Bug-Jack-Barron-Norman-Spinrad/dp/1585675857 It's about a TV phone-in talk show host who becomes the most powerful person in America.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Believability Poll: Round Three
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 29, 2008, at 4:46 PM, raunchydog wrote: snip You raised a phony generalization about women haters in order to attack me personally and you did so while knowing nothing about who I love or who loves me, or what I have shared in a lifetime or loving relationships or with children, family and friends. Isn't it really stupid to make shit up about people based on a stereotype? snip For one, why did you think this post (responding to Barry) refers to you? Since it doesn't refer to me either, who could Vaj possibly have had in mind? The only other women posting here currently are Sal, enlightened_dawn, and Ruth the Race- baiter. Are these the women Vaj is calling feminazis?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
Me, I want as leader of my country someone who is unafraid to sit down at a table with ANYONE, and talk things over with them. I want that leader to actually *listen* as the other person speaks, and try to figure out where he's coming from. And I want that leader to weigh what the other person says in coming to a reasoned and rational decision. To suggest that it is bad to talk to someone who thinks differently than you do is to suggest that it is bad to think. Curtis wrote: That was an interesting connection with techniques from the inquisition Turq. The war on terror has taken on so many qualities from that dark past hasn't it? Are you suggesting that the Cathars were terrorists?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY taught *The Supreme Doctrine* for modernity!
On Nov 1, 2008, at 11:14 AM, Richard Williams wrote: Glad to see willy believes everything that TM leaders say. The Swami Lachsmanjoo wasn't a 'TM leader', but from what I've read, he was a very informed teacher, and the last in a line of very illustrious teachers of the Kashmere Shivaism. Everyone knows that the primary yoga technique in Kashmere Shivaism is a meditation on the Transcedental Person utilizaing a mnemonic device called in Sanskrit a 'bija mantra' - this isn't new information. No, as with many of your posts, you're simply incorrect. Kashmir Shaivism is a nondual path and therefore doesn't primarily recommend dualistic styles of meditation (meditation on an object, i.e. with alambana). Mantra style meditation is for those who can't grok the nondual. Dualistic styles of meditation will always produce a dualistic fruit (e.g. CC).
[FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
You are missing the point entirely, and no dictionary or thesaurus can save you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. Dictionary.com disagrees with you, feste37: Preside Pre*side\, v. i. [imp. p. p. Presided; p. pr. vb. n. Presiding.] [L. praesidere; prae before + sedere to sit: cf. F. pr['e]sider. See Sit.] 1. To be set, or to sit, in the place of authority; to occupy the place of president, chairman, moderator, director, etc.; to direct, control, and regulate, as chief officer; as, to preside at a public meeting; to preside over the senate. 2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over. Some o'er the public magazines preside. --Dryden. and the thesaurus at the same website makes the case stronger: Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Main Entry: preside Part of Speech: verb Definition: be in authority Synonyms: administer, advise, be at the head of, be in driver's seat, call the signals, carry on, chair, conduct, control, direct, do the honors, govern, handle, head, head up, keep, lead, manage, officiate, operate, ordain, oversee, pull the strings, run, run the show, sit on top of, supervise Antonyms: follow, serve --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams willytex@ wrote: Vice President was in charge of the US Senate. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You laid out the different positions pretty fairly. Given that the president of the United States has to work with the world's despots and dictators to advance the agenda of the US, I think that Obama's ability to work on a specific project with a guy with a past like Ayers is an asset. The question is, does he condemn the guy's past activities right? That doesn't mean he should shun the guy who may be helpful in a current project that has nothing to do with his past. That's debatable, Curtis, and it really isn't parallel to a president's dealings with bad foreign leaders. Remember that Ayers and Dohrn held a fundraiser for Obama at their home when he was running for Illinois Senate. Let's say a guy goes to jail for murder. If he does his time and gets out, should every politician shun him forever on any positive project he works on for the rest of his life? Bad analogy. If the guy had murdered some drug dealer or his business partner or even his wife, maybe not. But Ayers wanted to bring down the U.S. government using terrorism as a means. No politician makes it through this gauntlet. Obama hasn't chosen to go this route in attacking Mccain, but he certainly could. Yes, he could. But that doesn't exonerate Obama. And some politicians are a lot cleaner in this regard than Obama is (not McCain, but others). snip So I guess I am concluding that harboring a grudge about someone's past may be a tidy way to live for people outside public office, but it isn't gunna be that easy for anyone with real power. I don't think harboring a grudge is the appropriate phrase here, for either situation; and again, I think the situations are very different. I am confident that Obama had these associations for the right and not the wrong reasons. I have no problem with the church he went to. (aside from the mock cannibalistic ritual which is the same problem I have with all churches!) It was a black church and raised black issue with a black perspective. OK, I guess that is because Obama IS black. I don't have a problem with his church either. I have a problem with his judgment in not realizing how it would be used against him if he ran for president; and I have a problem with the way he dealt with it when it became a public controversy. If Obama gets elected, I hope he continues to work with everyone around him on positive projects to help our country. If he brings out the best in a guy who was a past radical, that seems like a plus. Your best may be someone else's worst. As I said, as a leftist, I'd be only too happy to see Ayers's educational policies implemented. But those on the right have a legitimate gripe about them, and see them as directly connected to Ayers's past anti-government activities.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Possibly because she'll be competing against them in the ratings. I'm predicting that (assuming an Obama win) when this is all over, Sarah Palin will go back to Alaska and choose not to run in the next Gubernatorial election. Instead, I expect her to get her own national talk TV show, and use that as platform to push her candidacy for President in the next election. I think she'll have just about as much success as Katherine Harris did running for the US Senate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Believability Poll: Round Three
Ruth the Race- baiter The repetition of this term kind of reminds me of what is happening to Obama. I remember the little dust-up that lead to this charge. I remember you guys differing in your opinion. But with all Ruth's contributions to FFL, is this characterization really fair? Do you seriously believe that Ruth is a Race-baiter, like fer real real, outside that one instance where calling her that served your argument Judy? You often chastise this group for its moral vacuity Judy, when people don't speak up when someone is being unfair. So I'll speak up now. This term is a mean-spirited,unnecessary, gratuitous, personal attack, meant to slander a valued contributor to FFL. Ruth is neither racist or race-baiter and whatever your disagreements with her, she does not deserve to be characterized this way. The fact that you are still using this so long after the supposed incident expresses the qualities of an unfair grudge IMO. Repeating it is nasty and lowers the discourse here. Dropping in that term in a post that she was not even a part of is unfair. I thought it was unfair at the time in the context of the discussion, but at least then it had a context and was your POV in that context. Continuing this charge is absurd and obviously false from all that she has posted here. From Wiki Race baiting is an act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical to their personal or group interests. This can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists. The term race in this context can be construed very broadly to include the social constructs which define race or racial difference, as well as ethnic, religious, gender and economic differences. Thus the use of any language or actions perceived to be for the purpose of exploiting weaknesses in persons who can be identified as members of certain groups, or to reinforce a group's perceived victimhood, can be contained within the concept of race baiting. Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism, or have an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others. The term race baiting is often a critique of anti-racist actions and communications implying that those who criticize apparent racism are themselves guilty of either a form of racism or of simple manipulation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Oct 29, 2008, at 4:46 PM, raunchydog wrote: snip You raised a phony generalization about women haters in order to attack me personally and you did so while knowing nothing about who I love or who loves me, or what I have shared in a lifetime or loving relationships or with children, family and friends. Isn't it really stupid to make shit up about people based on a stereotype? snip For one, why did you think this post (responding to Barry) refers to you? Since it doesn't refer to me either, who could Vaj possibly have had in mind? The only other women posting here currently are Sal, enlightened_dawn, and Ruth the Race- baiter. Are these the women Vaj is calling feminazis?
[FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are missing the point entirely, and no dictionary or thesaurus can save you. If I'm missting the point entirely, why don't you educate me? That is if you have any point to make. But I suspect that you don't...at least, not any longer... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. Dictionary.com disagrees with you, feste37: Preside Pre*side\, v. i. [imp. p. p. Presided; p. pr. vb. n. Presiding.] [L. praesidere; prae before + sedere to sit: cf. F. pr['e]sider. See Sit.] 1. To be set, or to sit, in the place of authority; to occupy the place of president, chairman, moderator, director, etc.; to direct, control, and regulate, as chief officer; as, to preside at a public meeting; to preside over the senate. 2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over. Some o'er the public magazines preside. --Dryden. and the thesaurus at the same website makes the case stronger: Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Main Entry: preside Part of Speech: verb Definition: be in authority Synonyms: administer, advise, be at the head of, be in driver's seat, call the signals, carry on, chair, conduct, control, direct, do the honors, govern, handle, head, head up, keep, lead, manage, officiate, operate, ordain, oversee, pull the strings, run, run the show, sit on top of, supervise Antonyms: follow, serve --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams willytex@ wrote: Vice President was in charge of the US Senate. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States
[FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
I doubt whether it's possible to educate you. The point is very simple. This is what the idiot Palin claimed, that the VP is in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes. The statement is untrue, as I have pointed out. The VP is not in charge of the Senate. Senators are in charge of the Senate and resist pressure from outside. Ask LBJ, who became VP in 1961 and thought he could influence the Democrats in the Senate by attending their meetings. They froze him out. It would be much easier if you tried to educate yourself for a change. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: You are missing the point entirely, and no dictionary or thesaurus can save you. If I'm missting the point entirely, why don't you educate me? That is if you have any point to make. But I suspect that you don't...at least, not any longer... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. Dictionary.com disagrees with you, feste37: Preside Pre*side\, v. i. [imp. p. p. Presided; p. pr. vb. n. Presiding.] [L. praesidere; prae before + sedere to sit: cf. F. pr['e]sider. See Sit.] 1. To be set, or to sit, in the place of authority; to occupy the place of president, chairman, moderator, director, etc.; to direct, control, and regulate, as chief officer; as, to preside at a public meeting; to preside over the senate. 2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over. Some o'er the public magazines preside. --Dryden. and the thesaurus at the same website makes the case stronger: Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Main Entry: preside Part of Speech: verb Definition: be in authority Synonyms: administer, advise, be at the head of, be in driver's seat, call the signals, carry on, chair, conduct, control, direct, do the honors, govern, handle, head, head up, keep, lead, manage, officiate, operate, ordain, oversee, pull the strings, run, run the show, sit on top of, supervise Antonyms: follow, serve --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams willytex@ wrote: Vice President was in charge of the US Senate. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
snip snip I don't have a problem with his church either. I have a problem with his judgment in not realizing how it would be used against him if he ran for president; and I have a problem with the way he dealt with it when it became a public controversy. So he was quite politically calculating enough? My guess is that Obama went to church for his kids and sat there daydreaming about conquering the world and becoming president the whole time. Like Bill Mahar, I hope he is lying about being a real Christian. When it came out he played politics and was politically calculating. Imagine that. If Obama gets elected, I hope he continues to work with everyone around him on positive projects to help our country. If he brings out the best in a guy who was a past radical, that seems like a plus. Your best may be someone else's worst. As I said, as a leftist, I'd be only too happy to see Ayers's educational policies implemented. But those on the right have a legitimate gripe about them, and see them as directly connected to Ayers's past anti-government activities. I think you laid out the Republican's fears accurately. I don't know enough about Ayer's educational policies to have an opinion. But I do have an opinion about the people Ayers was fighting against who were acting against our best interest in South East Asia. They were not only wrong, they light babies on fire by the thousands on their illegal, and unsanctioned by the American people, air raids. They were destroying our country and any claim we could have to a higher ground than the communists. They did much more to ruin the kind of America that I want to live in then the Weather Underground, as misguided in their actions as I believe they were.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt whether it's possible to educate you. Truer words were never spoken. What a concept, a government with three branches that all work to keep the other branches power in check! That could really catch on. After Bush, who has done more than any president in history to subvert this basic premise of our country, is gone. The point is very simple. This is what the idiot Palin claimed, that the VP is in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes. The statement is untrue, as I have pointed out. The VP is not in charge of the Senate. Senators are in charge of the Senate and resist pressure from outside. Ask LBJ, who became VP in 1961 and thought he could influence the Democrats in the Senate by attending their meetings. They froze him out. It would be much easier if you tried to educate yourself for a change. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: You are missing the point entirely, and no dictionary or thesaurus can save you. If I'm missting the point entirely, why don't you educate me? That is if you have any point to make. But I suspect that you don't...at least, not any longer... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. Dictionary.com disagrees with you, feste37: Preside Pre*side\, v. i. [imp. p. p. Presided; p. pr. vb. n. Presiding.] [L. praesidere; prae before + sedere to sit: cf. F. pr['e]sider. See Sit.] 1. To be set, or to sit, in the place of authority; to occupy the place of president, chairman, moderator, director, etc.; to direct, control, and regulate, as chief officer; as, to preside at a public meeting; to preside over the senate. 2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over. Some o'er the public magazines preside. --Dryden. and the thesaurus at the same website makes the case stronger: Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Main Entry: preside Part of Speech: verb Definition: be in authority Synonyms: administer, advise, be at the head of, be in driver's seat, call the signals, carry on, chair, conduct, control, direct, do the honors, govern, handle, head, head up, keep, lead, manage, officiate, operate, ordain, oversee, pull the strings, run, run the show, sit on top of, supervise Antonyms: follow, serve --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams willytex@ wrote: Vice President was in charge of the US Senate. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Believability Poll: Round Three
On Nov 1, 2008, at 12:40 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: So I'll speak up now. This term is a mean-spirited,unnecessary, gratuitous, personal attack, meant to slander a valued contributor to FFL. Ruth is neither racist or race-baiter and whatever your disagreements with her, she does not deserve to be characterized this way. The fact that you are still using this so long after the supposed incident expresses the qualities of an unfair grudge IMO. Repeating it is nasty and lowers the discourse here. Dropping in that term in a post that she was not even a part of is unfair. I thought it was unfair at the time in the context of the discussion, but at least then it had a context and was your POV in that context. Continuing this charge is absurd and obviously false from all that she has posted here. Pretty funny too, since I believe Our Dear Ruth is multi-racial.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip But what is your spin Raunchy? I get the point that Obama downplayed his associations with a guy with a past. Seeing the constant focus on this issue I can kind of understand why. But his association with Ayers had nothing to do with Ayers's life from decades in the past. We want people working on education, right? Three points, if I may inject my own commentary. As we've discussed before, part of the problem is the downplaying, or not being straightforward about, the associations with folks who have unsavory pasts. This is a character issue. That he downplayed the associations because he feared they'd raise a ruckus is not only a poor excuse, it's bad judgment; he should have known the right-wing would claim he wasn't being straightforward because he had something to hide. (This applies not only to Ayers but also to Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.) Another part, where Ayers is concerned, is whether it speaks to character that Obama would associate at all with somebody like Ayers, no matter how clean his nose has been in more recent years. Some feel we don't want a president who has no compunctions about palling around with terrorists even if they're only *former* terrorists (and even if they're not really pals per se). I'm in sympathy with both these points. -snip- i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. FAIL. That may be what you *infer*, but it's not what I said *implies*, sorry. i wasn't talking about your comments necessarily, Yes, you were. You quoted my remarks and my agreement with the views I outlined. Then you said, The way these accusations are ALWAYS framed... (emphasis added). But what you went on to claim wasn't how I had framed the accusations at all. Have some self-respect, ed11, and take responsibility for your own statements. but i am sure you get the gist of what i am saying, editorially perfect or not. Has nothing to do with editorial perfection. I'm saying you read into my comments something that wasn't there and missed what was there. motes of dust...fine, i retract what i said as having anything at all to do with your comments, and stand so corrected. now i am curious, what do you think about the general premise i was making, and the conclusion i reached?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Kidney disease and high-fructose corn syrup.
bob_brigante wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: Hansen's doesn't make a cola that I'm aware of. There's China Cola: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Cola Ingredients: Purified carbonated water, raw cane sugar, szechuan peony root, cassia bark, Malaysian vanilla, oils of lemon, lime and orange, nutmeg, cloves, licorice, cardamom, caramel color, citric and phosphoric acids. I'm not crazy about the phosphoric acid (which is probably why Hansens does not make a cola) -- if I wanted to lose bone density, I'd pay $20 mil be a space tourist: Phosphoric acid, used in many soft drinks (primarily cola), has been linked to lower bone density in epidemiological studies. For example, a study[2] using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry rather than a questionnaire about breakage, provides reasonable evidence to support the theory that drinking cola results in lower bone density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphoric_acid Red Bull Cola doesn't have phosphoric acid. www.redbullcola.com We're talking about an occasional drink here not a regular daily addiction like so many folks have. I know people who instead of coffee drink diet colas daily. And BTW, the theater I go to is not owned by the studios but by a local entrepreneur, probably a software millionaire who likes movies. He bought up a lot of the local third party theaters, refurbished them and put in digital projection systems. He also built one new multiplex in a city that didn't have one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- But I do have an opinion about the people Ayers was fighting against who were acting against our best interest in South East Asia. They were not only wrong, they light babies on fire by the thousands on their illegal, and unsanctioned by the American people, air raids. They were destroying our country and any claim we could have to a higher ground than the communists. They did much more to ruin the kind of America that I want to live in then the Weather Underground, as misguided in their actions as I believe they were. so on the one hand is this tenuous at best association between one candidate and a in-his-college-days radical. on the other hand is a doofus who not only believed in blowing people to bits with his warplane during the vietnam war- not members of the establshment as bill ayers wanted to go after (but never did...), but anyone unfortunate enough to have an arm, leg or head blown off by the bombs on his fighter bomber. the doofus wasn't competent enough to keep the plane he flew in the air, ended up being a pow, got out and now supports the same tactics of bloodshed and murder that he actively participated in 40 years ago. and, get this, people want to go after the first guy instead of the killer doofus, whom they call a hero. does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Believability Poll: Round Three
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruth the Race- baiter The repetition of this term kind of reminds me of what is happening to Obama. Yes, he's a race-baiter too. I remember the little dust-up that lead to this charge. I remember you guys differing in your opinion. This is about Ruth saying she thought raunchydog's opposition to Obama was grounded in racism, when there hadn't been a single hint of it in her posts, based solely on the illustration of Obama on raunchydog's profile page--which was obviously taken directly from a famous photo of Fred Astaire. But with all Ruth's contributions to FFL, is this characterization really fair? Do you seriously believe that Ruth is a Race-baiter, like fer real real, outside that one instance where calling her that served your argument Judy? That one instance was a clear and unambiguous instance of race-baiting, yes. I would have called her on it even if our relations had been friendly up to that point. You often chastise this group for its moral vacuity Judy, when people don't speak up when someone is being unfair. So I'll speak up now. This term is a mean-spirited, unnecessary, gratuitous, personal attack, meant to slander a valued contributor to FFL. You're entitled to your opinion. But explain to me, please, how accusing raunchydog of racism in the absence of any evidence for same was not race-baiting. And it's very interesting what you choose to speak up about, given how rarely you do it, considering the incredible wealth of unfair charges that have been and continue to be made on this forum, particularly against me and raunchydog, Ruth's accusation of racism included. Ruth is neither racist or race-baiter I have no idea if she's a racist, but she is most definitely a race-baiter. and whatever your disagreements with her, she does not deserve to be characterized this way. A person who race-baits certainly does deserve to be called a race-baiter, whether I agree with them on other issues or not. The fact that you are still using this so long after the supposed incident expresses the qualities of an unfair grudge IMO. She never retracted or apologized for that accusation, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Her accusation had one purpose: to discredit raunchydog's criticisms of Obama. Sorry, but that is simply not excusable in my book. Repeating it is nasty and lowers the discourse here. Dropping in that term in a post that she was not even a part of is unfair. Funny, I haven't seen you speaking up about Barry's post this morning *reiterating* Ruth's accusation in no uncertain terms. Not the first time he's done so, either. He's added his own very special elaboration, claiming the illustration was meant to portray Stepin Fetchit. And my mention of it in the post you're responding to was germane, in that Vaj was dumping on those who oppose Obama, whereas Ruth is so in the tank for him that she was willing to use race-baiting to discredit the opposition. I thought it was unfair at the time in the context of the discussion, but at least then it had a context and was your POV in that context. Maybe you should have spoken up then, and we'd have had a chance to hash it out. Continuing this charge is absurd and obviously false from all that she has posted here. What has she posted here that would rebut the charge that she's a race-baiter? From Wiki This definition is confused and confusing. I've said explicitly how I'm using the term (this is included in the Wiki definition): A false accusation of racism intended to discredit the opinions of the person so accused, and/or intimidate them into shutting up. snip The term race baiting is often a critique of anti-racist actions and communications implying that those who criticize apparent racism are themselves guilty of either a form of racism or of simple manipulation. Simple manipulation is the situation in this case. Also, for the record, there's overt racism and unconscious, unintentional racism. But that's a topic for another discussion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I don't have a problem with his church either. I have a problem with his judgment in not realizing how it would be used against him if he ran for president; and I have a problem with the way he dealt with it when it became a public controversy. So he was quite politically calculating enough? (I think you wanted a not in there, right?) Remember, this is the fellow you expect to see sitting across the table from the bad guys engaging in super- delicate negotations that could affect the welfare of the whole world. It's crucially important for such a person to be able to accurately foresee the effects of what he says and does. My guess is that Obama went to church for his kids and sat there daydreaming about conquering the world and becoming president the whole time. Sorry, but he quotes Wright and praises him repeatedly in his books. The book title Audacity of Hope was taken from one of Wright's sermons. So he was most definitely paying attention. snip But I do have an opinion about the people Ayers was fighting against who were acting against our best interest in South East Asia. They were not only wrong, they light babies on fire by the thousands on their illegal, and unsanctioned by the American people, air raids. They were destroying our country and any claim we could have to a higher ground than the communists. They did much more to ruin the kind of America that I want to live in then the Weather Underground, as misguided in their actions as I believe they were. I agree, but I don't think it excuses Obama's collaboration with Ayers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Believability Poll: Round Three
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 1, 2008, at 12:40 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: So I'll speak up now. This term is a mean-spirited,unnecessary, gratuitous, personal attack, meant to slander a valued contributor to FFL. Ruth is neither racist or race-baiter and whatever your disagreements with her, she does not deserve to be characterized this way. The fact that you are still using this so long after the supposed incident expresses the qualities of an unfair grudge IMO. Repeating it is nasty and lowers the discourse here. Dropping in that term in a post that she was not even a part of is unfair. I thought it was unfair at the time in the context of the discussion, but at least then it had a context and was your POV in that context. Continuing this charge is absurd and obviously false from all that she has posted here. Pretty funny too, since I believe Our Dear Ruth is multi-racial. That could certainly explain why she's prone to race- baiting. Doesn't *excuse* it, though, any more than it does for Obama.
[FairfieldLife] Palin was 100% right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt whether it's possible to educate you. The point is very simple. This is what the idiot Palin claimed, that the VP is in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes. The statement is untrue, as I have pointed out. The VP is not in charge of the Senate. Uh, actually the VP is in charge of the Senate...at least according to the dictionary and thesaurus. Sorry that you discount the authority of the dictionary but, again, the phrase in charge of pretty much is the same as presides. Here is what dictionary.com says about the phrases in charge and in charge of under charge: 48. in charge, a. in command; having supervisory power. b. British. under arrest; in or into the custody of the police. 49. in charge of, a. having the care or supervision of: She is in charge of two libraries. b. Also, in the charge of. under the care or supervision of: The books are in the charge of the accounting office. ...and then when you look up the word supervise -- which prevails in the dictionary definition of in charge of -- in the thesaurus, we find that preside over is listed as a synonym: Main Entry: supervise Part of Speech: verb Definition: manage people, project Synonyms: administer, be in charge, be in driver's seat, be in the saddle, be on duty, be responsible for, boss, call the play, call the shots*, chaperon, conduct, control, crack the whip, deal with, direct, handle, inspect, keep an eye on, look after, overlook, oversee, preside over, quarterback, ride herd on*, run, run the show, run things, sit on top of, superintend, survey, take care of Antonyms: serve So Palin was exactly right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate. Senators are in charge of the Senate and resist pressure from outside. Ask LBJ, who became VP in 1961 and thought he could influence the Democrats in the Senate by attending their meetings. They froze him out. It would be much easier if you tried to educate yourself for a change. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: You are missing the point entirely, and no dictionary or thesaurus can save you. If I'm missting the point entirely, why don't you educate me? That is if you have any point to make. But I suspect that you don't...at least, not any longer... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. Dictionary.com disagrees with you, feste37: Preside Pre*side\, v. i. [imp. p. p. Presided; p. pr. vb. n. Presiding.] [L. praesidere; prae before + sedere to sit: cf. F. pr['e] sider. See Sit.] 1. To be set, or to sit, in the place of authority; to occupy the place of president, chairman, moderator, director, etc.; to direct, control, and regulate, as chief officer; as, to preside at a public meeting; to preside over the senate. 2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over. Some o'er the public magazines preside. --Dryden. and the thesaurus at the same website makes the case stronger: Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Main Entry: preside Part of Speech: verb Definition: be in authority Synonyms: administer, advise, be at the head of, be in driver's seat, call the signals, carry on, chair, conduct, control, direct, do the honors, govern, handle, head, head up, keep, lead, manage, officiate, operate, ordain, oversee, pull the strings, run, run the show, sit on top of, supervise Antonyms: follow, serve --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams willytex@ wrote: Vice President was in charge of the US Senate. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States
Re: [FairfieldLife] Palin was 100% right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate
No matter how you slice it, Palin is an anti-intellectual, small-town rube that has no place being a heartbeat away from the presidency of the U.S. Plenty of other republican women would be fine, but she is pathetic. --- On Sat, 11/1/08, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Palin was 100% right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, November 1, 2008, 1:36 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt whether it's possible to educate you. The point is very simple. This is what the idiot Palin claimed, that the VP is in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes. The statement is untrue, as I have pointed out. The VP is not in charge of the Senate. Uh, actually the VP is in charge of the Senate...at least according to the dictionary and thesaurus. Sorry that you discount the authority of the dictionary but, again, the phrase in charge of pretty much is the same as presides. Here is what dictionary.com says about the phrases in charge and in charge of under charge: 48. in charge, a. in command; having supervisory power. b. British. under arrest; in or into the custody of the police. 49. in charge of, a. having the care or supervision of: She is in charge of two libraries. b. Also, in the charge of. under the care or supervision of: The books are in the charge of the accounting office. ...and then when you look up the word supervise -- which prevails in the dictionary definition of in charge of -- in the thesaurus, we find that preside over is listed as a synonym: Main Entry: supervise Part of Speech: verb Definition: manage people, project Synonyms: administer, be in charge, be in driver's seat, be in the saddle, be on duty, be responsible for, boss, call the play, call the shots*, chaperon, conduct, control, crack the whip, deal with, direct, handle, inspect, keep an eye on, look after, overlook, oversee, preside over, quarterback, ride herd on*, run, run the show, run things, sit on top of, superintend, survey, take care of Antonyms: serve So Palin was exactly right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate. Senators are in charge of the Senate and resist pressure from outside. Ask LBJ, who became VP in 1961 and thought he could influence the Democrats in the Senate by attending their meetings. They froze him out. It would be much easier if you tried to educate yourself for a change. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: You are missing the point entirely, and no dictionary or thesaurus can save you. If I'm missting the point entirely, why don't you educate me? That is if you have any point to make. But I suspect that you don't...at least, not any longer... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. Dictionary.com disagrees with you, feste37: Preside Pre*side\, v. i. [imp. p. p. Presided; p. pr. vb. n. Presiding.] [L. praesidere; prae before + sedere to sit: cf. F. pr['e] sider. See Sit.] 1. To be set, or to sit, in the place of authority; to occupy the place of president, chairman, moderator, director, etc.; to direct, control, and regulate, as chief officer; as, to preside at a public meeting; to preside over the senate. 2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over. Some o'er the public magazines preside. --Dryden. and the thesaurus at the same website makes the case stronger: Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Main Entry: preside Part of Speech: verb Definition: be in authority Synonyms: administer, advise, be at the head of, be in driver's seat, call the signals, carry on, chair, conduct, control, direct, do the honors, govern, handle, head, head up, keep, lead, manage, officiate, operate, ordain, oversee, pull the strings, run, run the show, sit on top of, supervise Antonyms: follow, serve --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams willytex@ wrote: Vice President was in charge of the US Senate.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Palin was 100% right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate
I just watched the HBO John Adams series and if it's historically accurate, it put the lie to this claim. When John Adams was VP under George Washington, he got antsy because he didn't have enough to do, because the senators wouldn't allow him to participate in their regular deliberations.
[FairfieldLife] Re: FCOL, Sarah, read the Constitution!!!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt whether it's possible to educate you. The point is very simple. This is what the idiot Palin claimed, that the VP is in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes. The statement is untrue, as I have pointed out. The VP is not in charge of the Senate. Senators are in charge of the Senate This is true only in the same sense as when we say that the people are in charge of the United States and not some king. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. But we elect a president to run our government and it is he or she that is in charge of the actual day to day running of the government, NOT the people. If the people were, we would have anarchy and chaos. You or I, feste37, don't get to sing executive orders; the president does. So in THAT sense, the senators are NOT in charge of the Senate; it is the president of the Senate who presides over it. And that president is the VP, at least whenever there is a tie-break to perform (not sure whether the VP can come into the Senate any time he or she pleases...but the VP may be able to do that! I would have to research it more). But the VP also performs other duties as president of the Senate: do you not remember seeing footage of VP Cheney as the person who swears in new Senators? Whether Democrat or Republican, it is the VP's job as the person in charge of the Senate to do the swearing in. and resist pressure from outside. Ask LBJ, who became VP in 1961 and thought he could influence the Democrats in the Senate by attending their meetings. They froze him out. It would be much easier if you tried to educate yourself for a change. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: You are missing the point entirely, and no dictionary or thesaurus can save you. If I'm missting the point entirely, why don't you educate me? That is if you have any point to make. But I suspect that you don't...at least, not any longer... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. Dictionary.com disagrees with you, feste37: Preside Pre*side\, v. i. [imp. p. p. Presided; p. pr. vb. n. Presiding.] [L. praesidere; prae before + sedere to sit: cf. F. pr['e] sider. See Sit.] 1. To be set, or to sit, in the place of authority; to occupy the place of president, chairman, moderator, director, etc.; to direct, control, and regulate, as chief officer; as, to preside at a public meeting; to preside over the senate. 2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over. Some o'er the public magazines preside. --Dryden. and the thesaurus at the same website makes the case stronger: Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Main Entry: preside Part of Speech: verb Definition: be in authority Synonyms: administer, advise, be at the head of, be in driver's seat, call the signals, carry on, chair, conduct, control, direct, do the honors, govern, handle, head, head up, keep, lead, manage, officiate, operate, ordain, oversee, pull the strings, run, run the show, sit on top of, supervise Antonyms: follow, serve --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams willytex@ wrote: Vice President was in charge of the US Senate. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin was 100% right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate
My doubts about whether it is possible to educate you have been confirmed. I will waste no more time trying. It's a hopeless cause. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I doubt whether it's possible to educate you. The point is very simple. This is what the idiot Palin claimed, that the VP is in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes. The statement is untrue, as I have pointed out. The VP is not in charge of the Senate. Uh, actually the VP is in charge of the Senate...at least according to the dictionary and thesaurus. Sorry that you discount the authority of the dictionary but, again, the phrase in charge of pretty much is the same as presides. Here is what dictionary.com says about the phrases in charge and in charge of under charge: 48. in charge, a. in command; having supervisory power. b. British. under arrest; in or into the custody of the police. 49. in charge of, a. having the care or supervision of: She is in charge of two libraries. b. Also, in the charge of. under the care or supervision of: The books are in the charge of the accounting office. ...and then when you look up the word supervise -- which prevails in the dictionary definition of in charge of -- in the thesaurus, we find that preside over is listed as a synonym: Main Entry: supervise Part of Speech: verb Definition: manage people, project Synonyms: administer, be in charge, be in driver's seat, be in the saddle, be on duty, be responsible for, boss, call the play, call the shots*, chaperon, conduct, control, crack the whip, deal with, direct, handle, inspect, keep an eye on, look after, overlook, oversee, preside over, quarterback, ride herd on*, run, run the show, run things, sit on top of, superintend, survey, take care of Antonyms: serve So Palin was exactly right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate. Senators are in charge of the Senate and resist pressure from outside. Ask LBJ, who became VP in 1961 and thought he could influence the Democrats in the Senate by attending their meetings. They froze him out. It would be much easier if you tried to educate yourself for a change. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: You are missing the point entirely, and no dictionary or thesaurus can save you. If I'm missting the point entirely, why don't you educate me? That is if you have any point to make. But I suspect that you don't...at least, not any longer... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. Dictionary.com disagrees with you, feste37: Preside Pre*side\, v. i. [imp. p. p. Presided; p. pr. vb. n. Presiding.] [L. praesidere; prae before + sedere to sit: cf. F. pr['e] sider. See Sit.] 1. To be set, or to sit, in the place of authority; to occupy the place of president, chairman, moderator, director, etc.; to direct, control, and regulate, as chief officer; as, to preside at a public meeting; to preside over the senate. 2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over. Some o'er the public magazines preside. --Dryden. and the thesaurus at the same website makes the case stronger: Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Main Entry: preside Part of Speech: verb Definition: be in authority Synonyms: administer, advise, be at the head of, be in driver's seat, call the signals, carry on, chair, conduct, control, direct, do the honors, govern, handle, head, head up, keep, lead, manage, officiate, operate, ordain, oversee, pull the strings, run, run the show, sit on top of, supervise Antonyms: follow, serve --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard Williams willytex@ wrote: Vice President was in charge of the US Senate. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin was 100% right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just watched the HBO John Adams series and if it's historically accurate, it put the lie to this claim. When John Adams was VP under George Washington, he got antsy because he didn't have enough to do, because the senators wouldn't allow him to participate in their regular deliberations. Well, then, Rick we've come 360 degrees full cycle because this whole controversy started because Palin said in response to a journalist's question that she didn't know what the VP does. Well, that is pretty much what John Adams would have responded to, as per the situation you describe above! The VP job has long been complained about by the VP of the moment as a dead-end job: he or she sits around doing not much of anything other than being a warm body in case the president dies. So your little anecdote above about John Adams supports exactly what Palin claimed originally: I don't really know what the VP does! Well, neither did John Adams or he wouldn't have tried to impose himself on the deliberations that he wasn't welcomed to participate in in the first place!
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Has nothing to do with editorial perfection. I'm saying you read into my comments something that wasn't there and missed what was there. motes of dust...fine, i retract what i said as having anything at all to do with your comments, and stand so corrected. Thank you. now i am curious, what do you think about the general premise i was making, and the conclusion i reached? OK, let me move them down here: i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. I think that's *sometimes* the attitude, but by no means always. I also think there's a range of possibility in terms of meeting standards. No public figure is going to meet an absolute standard, but some come closer to it than others, in terms of the nature of their associations and the degree to which the associations seem repellent. And I think Obama tends to *invite* this kind of criticism because he really does present himself as holier-than-thou, spotless and untouchable. Plus which, some of his repellent associations have been quite recent, such as with the homophobic reformed gay Donnie McClurkin. Just in general, if he had been more straightforward and forthcoming about his past associations from the get-go, it would have been much more difficult for folks to use them against him. So I think there's some truth to your premise and conclusions, but the situation isn't nearly as cut- and-dried as you make it sound.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin was 100% right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My doubts about whether it is possible to educate you have been confirmed. I will waste no more time trying. It's a hopeless cause. feste37, you are an intellectual giant. I thank you for taking the time that you already have out of your important day to have given the comments you have on this subject. Of course, they were totally meaningless and, indeed, suggest your defeat. Otherwise, you would have some substance to provide on the subject. But you are/were wrong and there is no better evidence of that than your immature pouting and insistance that it is impossible to educate me more and that you will waste no more time trying. I bow down to your obvious superiority. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I doubt whether it's possible to educate you. The point is very simple. This is what the idiot Palin claimed, that the VP is in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes. The statement is untrue, as I have pointed out. The VP is not in charge of the Senate. Uh, actually the VP is in charge of the Senate...at least according to the dictionary and thesaurus. Sorry that you discount the authority of the dictionary but, again, the phrase in charge of pretty much is the same as presides. Here is what dictionary.com says about the phrases in charge and in charge of under charge: 48. in charge, a. in command; having supervisory power. b. British. under arrest; in or into the custody of the police. 49. in charge of, a. having the care or supervision of: She is in charge of two libraries. b. Also, in the charge of. under the care or supervision of: The books are in the charge of the accounting office. ...and then when you look up the word supervise -- which prevails in the dictionary definition of in charge of -- in the thesaurus, we find that preside over is listed as a synonym: Main Entry: supervise Part of Speech: verb Definition: manage people, project Synonyms: administer, be in charge, be in driver's seat, be in the saddle, be on duty, be responsible for, boss, call the play, call the shots*, chaperon, conduct, control, crack the whip, deal with, direct, handle, inspect, keep an eye on, look after, overlook, oversee, preside over, quarterback, ride herd on*, run, run the show, run things, sit on top of, superintend, survey, take care of Antonyms: serve So Palin was exactly right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate. Senators are in charge of the Senate and resist pressure from outside. Ask LBJ, who became VP in 1961 and thought he could influence the Democrats in the Senate by attending their meetings. They froze him out. It would be much easier if you tried to educate yourself for a change. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: You are missing the point entirely, and no dictionary or thesaurus can save you. If I'm missting the point entirely, why don't you educate me? That is if you have any point to make. But I suspect that you don't...at least, not any longer... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. Dictionary.com disagrees with you, feste37: Preside Pre*side\, v. i. [imp. p. p. Presided; p. pr. vb. n. Presiding.] [L. praesidere; prae before + sedere to sit: cf. F. pr['e] sider. See Sit.] 1. To be set, or to sit, in the place of authority; to occupy the place of president, chairman, moderator, director, etc.; to direct, control, and regulate, as chief officer; as, to preside at a public meeting; to preside over the senate. 2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over. Some o'er the public magazines preside. --Dryden. and the thesaurus at the same website makes the case stronger: Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Main Entry: preside Part of Speech: verb Definition: be in authority Synonyms: administer, advise, be at the head of, be in driver's seat, call the signals, carry on, chair, conduct, control,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Palin was 100% right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate
I explained it to you quite carefully but you are too stupid and too ignorant to understand. So be it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: My doubts about whether it is possible to educate you have been confirmed. I will waste no more time trying. It's a hopeless cause. feste37, you are an intellectual giant. I thank you for taking the time that you already have out of your important day to have given the comments you have on this subject. Of course, they were totally meaningless and, indeed, suggest your defeat. Otherwise, you would have some substance to provide on the subject. But you are/were wrong and there is no better evidence of that than your immature pouting and insistance that it is impossible to educate me more and that you will waste no more time trying. I bow down to your obvious superiority. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I doubt whether it's possible to educate you. The point is very simple. This is what the idiot Palin claimed, that the VP is in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes. The statement is untrue, as I have pointed out. The VP is not in charge of the Senate. Uh, actually the VP is in charge of the Senate...at least according to the dictionary and thesaurus. Sorry that you discount the authority of the dictionary but, again, the phrase in charge of pretty much is the same as presides. Here is what dictionary.com says about the phrases in charge and in charge of under charge: 48. in charge, a. in command; having supervisory power. b. British. under arrest; in or into the custody of the police. 49. in charge of, a. having the care or supervision of: She is in charge of two libraries. b. Also, in the charge of. under the care or supervision of: The books are in the charge of the accounting office. ...and then when you look up the word supervise -- which prevails in the dictionary definition of in charge of -- in the thesaurus, we find that preside over is listed as a synonym: Main Entry: supervise Part of Speech: verb Definition: manage people, project Synonyms: administer, be in charge, be in driver's seat, be in the saddle, be on duty, be responsible for, boss, call the play, call the shots*, chaperon, conduct, control, crack the whip, deal with, direct, handle, inspect, keep an eye on, look after, overlook, oversee, preside over, quarterback, ride herd on*, run, run the show, run things, sit on top of, superintend, survey, take care of Antonyms: serve So Palin was exactly right when she said the VP is in charge of the Senate. Senators are in charge of the Senate and resist pressure from outside. Ask LBJ, who became VP in 1961 and thought he could influence the Democrats in the Senate by attending their meetings. They froze him out. It would be much easier if you tried to educate yourself for a change. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: You are missing the point entirely, and no dictionary or thesaurus can save you. If I'm missting the point entirely, why don't you educate me? That is if you have any point to make. But I suspect that you don't...at least, not any longer... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: That is not being in charge of the Senate! VP merely presides, has no influence other than casting tie-breaking vote. Dictionary.com disagrees with you, feste37: Preside Pre*side\, v. i. [imp. p. p. Presided; p. pr. vb. n. Presiding.] [L. praesidere; prae before + sedere to sit: cf. F. pr['e] sider. See Sit.] 1. To be set, or to sit, in the place of authority; to occupy the place of president, chairman, moderator, director, etc.; to direct, control, and regulate, as chief officer; as, to preside at a public meeting; to preside over the senate. 2. To exercise superintendence; to watch over. Some o'er the public magazines preside. --Dryden. and the
[FairfieldLife] Re: If Obama becomes president...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...he will force little American children to marry each other, according to Muslim tradition: FWIW, the police broke up the wedding and arrested the parents, who face fines and a month in jail. Pakistan law prohibits marriage before the age of 18. (Muslim law says it's *sometimes* permissible for children to marry at the age of puberty, but these kids obviously were nowhere near that.) The point of the wedding, according to the parents, was to end a longstanding feud between the families.
[FairfieldLife] Cheney Endorses McCain
I'll bet this helps a McSame lot. Ha Ha Ha... - do.rflex With President Bush intentionally lying low this week, according to the New York Times, the Obama campaign wasted no time sending out a video of Vice President Dick Cheney's endorsement of Sen. John McCain for president. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGcM6MPqVM0 via: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/11/01/cheney_endorses_mccain.html
[FairfieldLife] Why We Vote as We Do - modern take on Carl Jung Deepak Chopra
What deep-seated feelings affect our votes for President? The following article), sent to us by a friend, summarizes some thoughts by Minister John Spong and inspirational leader Deepak Chopra. We hope that you find in interesting. George and Eleonore John Spong was the Episcopal bishop of Newark for 24 years before his retirement in 2000. He has written many books that we would call progressive, a man of 21st century Christian perspective. The Shadow in the Presidential Race The campaign for the Presidency of the United States in 2008 seems to me to be filled with subliminal themes and unconscious dimensions. These things are manifested in a number of ways. First of all, the energy in this election appears to be at the top of the Democratic ticket and at the bottom of the Republican ticket. For example, Senator Obama draws huge crowds, delivers ringing speeches and elicits both positive and negative energy. Senator Biden, his running mate, is barely noticed and has been referred to as the 'other candidate for the vice-presidency.' Senator Biden gets media attention only when he does 'Bidenesque' things like suggesting that Hillary Clinton may be more qualified than he for the vice presidency, criticizing his own campaign's negative ad on John McCain's age and saying that President Roosevelt addressed the nation on television when the market crashed in 1929. On the Republican ticket, however, Senator McCain and Governor Palin appear to be 'joined at the hip' in that John McCain no longer appears anywhere without her. Republican strategists fear that McCain alone would not draw sufficient crowds and believe that Governor Palin is the primary source of energy in his campaign. She draws both the most emotional support and the most vehement criticism. One almost gets a sense that this is a race between Senator Obama and Governor Palin. Perhaps one reason for this is that Senator Obama and Governor Palin represent the next generation while Senator McCain and Senator Biden have been involved in Washington's national debates for a quarter of a century. The democratic ticket puts youth and relative inexperience at the top of its ticket while the Republicans, headed by the oldest person in the history of our nation to run for this office for the first time, has put youth and relative inexperience at the bottom of its ticket. Political energy does not normally come from the top of one ticket and from the bottom of the other. While thinking of this anomaly I received an article by Deepak Chopra, a doctor whose writings about holistic medicine, thinking and living I greatly admire. Chopra approaches life from the vantage point of an eastern spirituality that gives him a different perspective. In this particular piece, he seemed to me to explain exactly what I was groping to understand. Chopra suggested that Senator Obama and Governor Palin are pitted against each other in our psyches, that inadvertently and without planning to do so the Republicans have chosen Obama's 'shadow' to be their VP candidate. Chopra further argues that the campaign is not about issues at all, but about the internal struggle in American souls as to our willingness to embrace a new consciousness. Let me try to share his thinking. Senator Obama, Chopra writes, triggers the shadow part of our psyche that wants to hide out of sight, that part of ourselves that responds to fear, that counters our highest aspirations, our virtues and our visions of a new humanity. Our 'shadows' are afraid of change, leery of the future, and apprehensive about those who are 'different.' These emotions are seldom expressed directly, but are wrapped inside expressions of anger, revenge and selfishness. Most of us, Chopra says, are usually so ashamed of this shadow side of life that we do not want to admit publicly that we harbor such feelings. While Senator Obama calls for us to reach for our higher selves, Chopra continues, he is inadvertently, but simultaneously, stirring up these hidden and unsavory responses. Clearly Senator Obama's ethnicity, eliciting as it does the deep and latent racism of the generations, is a part of that, but his call for change also serves to loosen these shadows in us all. Senator Obama is different in other ways. Growing up as he did in Indonesia and Hawaii, he is less provincial. By the time he was six, he had seen more of the world than George Bush had when he entered the White House and more than Governor Palin has seen at age 44. He is comfortable in this wider world and beckons the people of this nation to follow him into a new world vision. He embraces a sense of human interdependence that tempers 'the rugged individualism' that is so much a part of the American psyche. So his candidacy may stir up fears of boundary removal of which the populace is not even consciously aware. If that possibility can be embraced and entertained as true, it might explain the enormous enthusiasm that Governor Palin is now eliciting. No
[FairfieldLife] Re: What do Rashid Khalidid and Sirhan Sirhan have in common?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Has nothing to do with editorial perfection. I'm saying you read into my comments something that wasn't there and missed what was there. motes of dust...fine, i retract what i said as having anything at all to do with your comments, and stand so corrected. Thank you. now i am curious, what do you think about the general premise i was making, and the conclusion i reached? OK, let me move them down here: i find it odd that those who would criticize our next President for the company he may keep hold him to an impossible standard, and one that is impossible for any public figure to uphold. the way these accusations are always framed imply that as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you have ever had more than a passing association with, past and present. I think that's *sometimes* the attitude, but by no means always. I also think there's a range of possibility in terms of meeting standards. No public figure is going to meet an absolute standard, but some come closer to it than others, in terms of the nature of their associations and the degree to which the associations seem repellent. And I think Obama tends to *invite* this kind of criticism because he really does present himself as holier-than-thou, spotless and untouchable. Plus which, some of his repellent associations have been quite recent, such as with the homophobic reformed gay Donnie McClurkin. Just in general, if he had been more straightforward and forthcoming about his past associations from the get-go, it would have been much more difficult for folks to use them against him. So I think there's some truth to your premise and conclusions, but the situation isn't nearly as cut- and-dried as you make it sound. thanks for answering. as to this holier than thou perception of obama, i'm just not seeing it. he protects and crafts his public image, sure, but i don't get the whole better than anybody else attitude from him. i do on the other hand think he is one of the few presidents we have had who is a good fit for the times; able to truly lead instead of just making things worse for most of us. to excuse any of this stuff being thrown at him as somehow due to his actions i think gives those seeking to slander him a free pass.
Re: [FairfieldLife] President Obama in danger 2010?
Bhairitu wrote: cardemaister wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081030/lf_afp/usvoteindiaastrology_081030051609 The month from April 5, 2010 to May 16, 2010 is very dangerous for him. I really pray that everything should be all right, he said. I think this astrologer forgot to add 12 hours to Obama's birth time to make it PM not AM. He's not a Leo rising but Leo rising is what you get if you take 7:24 AM instead of 7:24 PM or 19:24 hours. PM makes him Aquarius rising. Correction, it would be Capricorn rising with sidereal astrology which is what most though not all Indian astrologers use and Aquarius tropical or western astrology. Sorry I had just looked at the chart on www.astrodatabank.com which uses tropical positions on a Vedic chart, I suppose to sidesteps the quarrels over whose ayanamsha is right. ;-)
