overreaction towards stupidity? | ADHD Information

Nah, I'm tolerant of stupidity and ignorance. For those of you who aren't, what, you think you're all super genius wonder people?Ahh, great to invent your own yardsticks aint it
[QUOTE=GarbagePailKid]Nah, I'm tolerant of stupidity and ignorance. For those of you who aren't, what, you think you're all super genius wonder people?Ahh, great to invent your own yardsticks aint it
[/QUOTE]

Ignorance I have no issue with. I work in a field where very few people actually understand what I actually do - I have no issues with ignorance.

Stupidity and arrogance get under my skin - my initial post was in reaction to another post elsewhere on the board, and I was a little ashamed that I went off on them to the extent that I did.

In context: like most ADD people I am in a situation where I'm learning every day, I dont ever sit there and tell the more experienced in the group that I know better than them. That carries over to anonymous internet forums where I have no clue whether I'm talking to some punk kid who quit high school or Stephen Hawking.
Usually not in front of the person/s being stupid or ignorant, there are some bosses I work with that fit the description. But when i'm able to get away from them I could scream (and sometimes do). Some people thinks it's their "style" to purposely try to upset other people. I try not to give them that benefit. [QUOTE=Wordwoman]And the worst kind is that peculiar mix of stupidity and arrogance. Isn't it
weird how often these coexist?[/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more.

If I say anything of a political nature, I will surely get myself in trouble deep.
And the worst kind is that peculiar mix of stupidity and arrogance. Isn't it
weird how often these coexist?Huge. Huge. I almost confronted somebody over their bumper sticker
today. I am feeling very self congratulatory over not arguing with a
stranger in the supermarket parking lot. I have passionate reactions to a
lot of things. Isn't that the ADD way?

Hey, does it count if we had passionate reactions to each other?

Not of the birthing kind, either!

More like the new birth ing kind...

I can TOTALLY relate! It's hard to keep it in check but my meds tent to do that unless it's something done to hurt someone else.

I'd clarify that it's not necessarily stupidity - some people just aren't bright but if they're nice I let it slide - nobody's perfect I should know! It's when someone is otherwise seemingly smart but doesn't use common sense that it irks me - or if someone hurts someone else's feelings to seem more superior. That and someone who obviously doesn't help other people when they can - like opening a door for a senior/child/lady. Bugs me totally! Idiocy and rudeness are almost an OCD issue.

Good example is where I work in a factory. I watch employees who have worked here as long as me not having the common courtesy to help their fellow workers to keep up. It's not hard and just a common-sense thing that if you keep your fellow workers working well that it helps the whole group. Argh!!!!!

So much rudeness and stupidity exists. If not for a strong will right now I'd probably spend a lot of time slapping people upside of their heads. A lot of time in court too I guess! LOL

I always say that there is a difference between ignorance (not having information) and stupidity (being unintelligent). Some people don't like that or think it's harsh but if you look up the words in the dictionary there is a distinct difference.

Kind of harsh but I have no patience for stupidity. Drives me ballistic.

So, anyone else have passionate reactions to stupidity?

I do

Thanks to everyone who I've had the pleasure to talk to in the last few months....just in case:)

[QUOTE=bluebird38] [QUOTE=Wordwoman]And the worst kind is that peculiar mix of stupidity and arrogance. Isn't it
weird how often these coexist?[/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more.

If I say anything of a political nature, I will surely get myself in trouble deep.
[/QUOTE]

Funny - I was thinking of making a poitical comment too, but then thought I probably shouldn't.

Yes, I have a definite attitude against stupidity. I often say that I am not prejudice against anyone except stupid people - sadly that seems to be a growing number of people!

Won't belabour the point but my comments on Rush were pointing to the fact that he ranted and wailed about people using drugs when he himself was doing just that...I have no time for people like that...he did cause trouble for other people...he's a nobody...having money and air time doesn't make you a success...not in the least...won't even get into the politics...specially being a Canuck who’s lived in the east & west

yes freedom of speech is important --- of course, you need not agree
with what is being said.

right? didn't someone already say that 'i disagree with what he is saying
but i will fight to the death for his right to say it'

freedom of speech is entirely different from deliberate propagation of
misinformation... ie the sort of nonsense along the lines of Saddam was a
best buddy with Osama (they hated each other - Osama saw him as a
pork-eating, alcohol drinking apostasising fat greedy secular pig; and
Saddam saw Osama as a holier than thou religious nut). only when the
USA decided to attack Iraq did those two come to any kind of mutual
outlook (ie sod off America)...

so that is where i find the trouble to lie. not to let people have the right
of free speech but there seems to be no control over dissemination of
biased and downright wrong propoganda.

i heard and i am not sure whether it is true that under Stalin - all teachers
had to tell their students that Shakespeare was, in fact, Russian (why I
have no idea....) but that is plain wrong. it might be freedom of speech
but it is not true.

weirdly enough - i am actually pro the war in Iraq, i think Saddam may
have become a threat and it is far easier to deal with someone BEFORE
they have nuclear weapons than after --- having said that it was a
complete and total distortion to say (as was said in the UK) that Saddam
had weapons which could wipe out European cities in 45minutes. it was a
lie - and the spin-doctors and Tony Blair KNEW it was a lie, they
deliberately phrased it so they weren't in fact actually saying that factually
but put it out there to be understood as a fact. that is PLAIN wrong.

i should know, i am an excellent dissembler. i do it all the time -
however never as far as i am aware deliberately to hurt people or defraud
them. and never with such serious consequences as taking ones country
into a war on FALSE premises.

freedom of speech exists in many countries --- but there are always
limits i cannot preach religious or racial hatred (in the UK at least) in the
manner of the Nazi diatribes etc. or treason. i presume it is the same
here. so there are limits.

and as for that interference with religious etc. first amendment part -
what about David Koresh and Waco or the polygamists of Utah etc. etc.
there is no outright freedom. what about the rights of those held without
charge in Guantanamo bay --- it is difficult to posit that one is all about
human rights and democracy when there are obvious human rights
violations in ones own backyard - starting with opting out of the Geneva
Convention. so it is all swings and roundabouts i guess.

my biggest worry is for the women of Iraq - under Saddam they were
relatively free with a new religious govt. coming in - there is far more
pressure for them to be forced back into the hijab/the kitchen/without
rights to education any more. i really worry for them - i do not think the
future looks bright for women in Iraq. but as one american politician said
(i forget whom) 'nobody said democracy had anything to do with women's
rights...'

woop-de-doo! yup those women's rights will just be those damn fool
pesky liberals at it again. why not do away with human rights too in the
name of 'democracy'.

you know i am just gonna add one more thing (as i am on a rant - i gotta
get off these....)

and it has NOTHING to do with my genuine like of all the american people
i have come across, their spontaneous openess, generosity and humour.

in England - there is a kind of joke which is 'what is the definition of a
liberal?'

answer 'a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.'

and i do feel slightly that is what has happened to america.

some people get mugged and manage to shrug it off and others can't get
over it, take fright and live in fear and feel aggression and anger and
hatred and shock all sorts of bad things and CAN'T get over it - it
radically alters their psyche permanently.

and i can't help thinking that that is what happened 9/11 2001. it took
america a previously amazingly open and liberal country and turned it
into a fearful, aggressive, reactionary state.

the consequences are much increased hostility both by and to America
from the rest of the world. instead of being this sunny, open (ok
occasionally meddling unfairly in South American politics and deliberately
skewing systems to support its unrivalled economic power) but generally
well-intentioned super power. it changed and changed the whole of the
world with it --- now the rest of the world has to live with a super-
charged, super-fearful, reactionary, aggressive super-power... one that is
all about pre-emptive strikes ie we will do what we want, when we want,
in whatever country we want whether it is legitimate or sanctioned or not
and it is like having to live with an unstable neighbour that you know has
a myriad of guns locked away in his apartment - it doesn't make the
world feel like a safe place.... at all.

that's just a foreigner's viewpoint though. thought i'd put it out there
under the guise of free speech an' all.

and i'll add just in case someone kinda says 'well, would you prefer the
Russians or the Chinese or the Iraqis to be the superpower?' ??????

no, of course not... i think a balance is best. not any one country having
dominance is best. to keep all imperial ambitions at bay.

i know that england has had a very murky past history itself - i am not
saying one country is better or worse than another.

just that the shift in attitude from openess and trust to xenophobia and
suspicion is a bad route to go down in my opinion because as with many
things in life --- if you continually expect something bad off someone
you almost create it, you provoke and fulfil your own expectations and i
don't want a World War III... i don't think it is inevitable i just think the
current attitude of hostility and 'you're either with us or against us' is
creating schisms and divisions where they previously used not to exist.

pushing people into sectarianism... it just worries me cos i DON'T think it
is necessary.

i am not a person who cries less if an american dies than an english or
less if an iraqi dies than an american... every death weighs equally.

most wars seem pointless to me (one exception is WW2) - you fight and
after x million are dead on both sides you still have to go back to living
with each other. no matter how hard they try it is unlikely america and
britain will be able to kill every living muslim or arab on the planet ---
why would we even want to contemplate that kind of genocide.

surely it is fine and acceptable to live together with mutual
understanding, differences and yet tolerance...?

omg it is that pesky hippy-liberal coming out in me again. i think it is
because i am a woman that's all - i don't understand war (i don't think
any women really do) i don't understand why people want to kill others
pre-emptively or not. why we can't all, on all sides, live in peace and
tolerance. it's gotta be a man thing perhaps a power thing - so maybe i'll
shut up and let those who understand it, talk about it.

chjones38606.8190972222

I've been watching here for a couple of postings and I'm scratching my head on how it ended up on the Iraq war. Waaaaaa? LOL. Seems you can't end up chatting about most anything these days without coming to that eh?

I agree on the topic of stupidity and not tolerating it George dubbya hits a high spot for me. During the decision to attack Iraq I kept screaming at the TV at the total stupidity of it all. "What about north Korea??? what about somalia?? what about bloody Iran - where there is terrorists????" Spent a nutty time where I was glad I live alone so I didn't seem such a nutter.

It's just so hard to tolerate a world leader - especially of the only remaining superpower that doesn't even know the name of the leader next door in canada. He's such a moron that I don't think that even if I had the chance to meet him I could keep my mouth shut. I have low tolerance of the true ignoramus - especially when combined with religious fervor and racial intolerance. Ugh. Add to that he snorted coke and smoked grass and yet somehow he can't recall ever doing either that just bothers me.

He he - sorry to go off on that - most people are very polarized either side - especially americans. You either think he's god's gift (literally I guess) to the world or the scariest finger to be near "the button" since danny quayle. Ugh squared.

Sorry sorry all - usually I keep it to myself how much contempt I have for him. The rest of the US (not counting Dick "the puppeteer" Cheney, Condaleeza "ass kisser" Rice, et. al.) is pretty cool in my books.

Ok carry on that's all from me.

yeah, my president, and his overbearing stupidity bugs the hell out of me too.

it's scary that his cocksure attitude is what convinced many decent americans to vote for him, bringing him close to enough votes to win, that it's hard to contest his election amidst the two sketchiest american national elections in our history.

he is the very picture of a modern major reprobate. and, add or not, he does elicit that impatient reaction from me.

[QUOTE=The Resistance!]I don't understand why anyone would subject themselves to Rush Limbaugh even when they are in 100% agreement. All I hear in the long run is "liberals suck" repeated in a drumbeat about as irritating as a dripping faucet. Maybe they do suck Rush, but so does your show.

I usually ask the Bush haters how they would react if Bill Clinton or someone on their team made the moves Bush is making - I don't want them to tell me, I just want them to actually consider it in their own inner debate. I used to do the same to Clinton haters.

The Bush bashing is very like the old Clinton bashing to me. Everyone seems to have to be demonized.
[/QUOTE]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Welcome back, T. R.

How was your vacation?

Some of your friends have been attempting contact...

[QUOTE=seeker63]a) i have done nothing to inhibit the limbaugh and his ilk from promulgating his brand of hate speech. Your's sounds just as hateful as his, and his genre.

b) if many of those guys had their way, i could be imprisoned (maybe even tortured) for disagreeing. If you could have your way, what would you do? Silence the lambs?

c)Rush, for instance, has about 15 hours each week, on an international platform, making millions of $$$, reaching who knows how many people. many of whom don't have the education, time, or resources to independently verify the views and exhortations he forwards. but i'm sure he appreciates your stepping in on his behalf, being, you know, so vulnerable and all. Is it perhaps jealousy the drives your passion? For his success, his money, his following? I am more pointing out the point of these posts, in the views and exhortations you are posting, than supporting him. I am satisfied with my lot in life, and prefer devoting my time to healing the hearts and minds of ADDers, not debating politics. [/QUOTE]

So, as you said ealier, you were done, and as I said earlier. Amen.

resistance- i will tell you. if clinton had made half the mistakes, missteps, and had half the contempt for the average american that pres. bush has, i would be just as vocal.

in fact clinton was more like what the current republicans claim they are, than this crowd will ever be.

is there no difference between constructive, honest, analysis that reveals the facts, negative though they may be, and bashing?

it has been widely portrayed by the press here that george is a nice guy. he may be a regular guy when you talk to him in the right milieu.

the problem is the effects of his administrations policies are having far reaching negative consequences. it's working out pretty good for top 2% economically, but the other 98% are not better off after 5 yrs of these people.

btw- these are the same people that spent m, and untold amounts of other time and energy trying to nail clinton with something, find some kind of wrongdoing, and all they could get him on was sticking his d*** in some jewish girl's mouth! (no!- i am not anti-semitic)

if a gay man robs a bank and shoots the teller, am i 'gay bashing' if i think he should be prosecuted?

D.- it amuses me that you think i should let rush have his, as he lets me have mine!

a) i have done nothing to inhibit the limbaugh and his ilk from promulgating his brand of hate speech.

b) if many of those guys had their way, i could be imprisoned (maybe even tortured) for disagreeing.

I don't understand why anyone would subject themselves to Rush Limbaugh even when they are in 100% agreement. All I hear in the long run is "liberals suck" repeated in a drumbeat about as irritating as a dripping faucet. Maybe they do suck Rush, but so does your show.

I usually ask the Bush haters how they would react if Bill Clinton or someone on their team made the moves Bush is making - I don't want them to tell me, I just want them to actually consider it in their own inner debate. I used to do the same to Clinton haters.

The Bush bashing is very like the old Clinton bashing to me. Everyone seems to have to be demonized.

i disagree as to why we are in iraq, but not that many have made, and are making, great sacrifices in order that we all get to enjoy these noble and inalienable rights.

i am deeply grateful for the dedication of those who put themselves at risk for the defense and continuation of those rights, including members of my own family, past and present.

i don't contest the "rushes" having the right to speak their mind. it is the variety of thoughts, feelings, and ideas that make us great, and useful to the entirety of humanity. sometimes extreme views are important for exerting a balancing effect on the whole of the discussion, even if they hold little or limited merit on their own. the point is we all have a voice, and thank god and the constitution for ensuring this right.

my problem with the issue is the disingenuous dismissal of opposing viewpoints, and the personal attacks on those that hold them. these people i've been mentioning have every right to their voice, and i for one would run to their defense to speak their opinion. but how helpful is divisiveness and derision to the process of continually, more fully, realising the dreams our Constitution and Declaration of Independence embody?

even this little verbal skirmish davidornado and i are having is evidence to me of the greatness and indisputable neccesity of this right of free speech.

thank you d. for the challenge to my sensibilities and the oppportunity for the discussion.

God bless us all- we need it!

[QUOTE=seeker63]i disagree as to why we are in iraq, [/QUOTE]

Car Bomb on HQ of Iraqi Shi'ite Party Kills 9

seeker63 said:
my problem with the issue is the disingenuous dismissal of opposing viewpoints, and the personal attacks on those that hold them. these people i've been mentioning have every right to their voice, and i for one would run to their defense to speak their opinion. but how helpful is divisiveness and derision to the process of continually, more fully, realising the dreams our Constitution and Declaration of Independence embody?

Davidornadog paraphrased:
my problem with the issue is the disingenuous dismissal of opposing viewpoints, and the personal attacks on those that hold them. Seeker has every right to his voice, and i for one have run to his defense to speak his opinion. but how helpful is divisiveness and derision to the process of continually, more fully, realising the dreams our Constitution and Declaration of Independence embody?

So let Rush have his...

He lets you have yours...

[QUOTE=seeker63]1. even this little verbal skirmish davidornado and i are having is evidence to me of the greatness and indisputable neccesity of this right of free speech.

2. thank you d. for the challenge to my sensibilities and the oppportunity for the discussion.

3. God bless us all- we need it![/QUOTE] [quote=Davidornadoggedly]

1. I prefer the word 'debate'.

2. You're welcome.

3. Amen. [/quote]

cos otherwise creative tax accountants would be out of job.... !

and because it is not the ethos --- you shouldn't be punished for being
successful, right? so just because you earn more does not necessarily
mean you should pay more as you use the same quantity of the facilities
air, roads, schools etc. as any other single person... i think that is the
theory, roughly as i understand it.

you will still pay in theory (40% in the UK - not sure what it is over here) a
substantially larger amount due to your larger earnings than me, for
example - unless you have the benefit of a creative tax-accountant which
many do and in the UK plenty of billionaires with incomes in the 10s of
millions end up paying LESS tax than a nurse on a salary of ,000.

or am i mis-understanding the question?

i don't really know how the tax system works in the US. in the UK yes, in
theory, they should pay 40% of their 'income' to the govt.... and in some
ways because the system is staggered ie if you earn under ,000 a year
you only pay 20% taxes --- so one billionaire should pay the government
40million out of his 100 million whereas a whole bunch of nurses will end
up only forking over 20 million from their collective 100million.

but then they only get taxed on their accumulated wealth and assets
when they die (death duties/inheritance tax) and normally avoid this by
setting up trusts and the like. actually i am so far from an expert on this
subject... i have no clue

and as you said - not add related so i'll shut up now too.chjones38606.5186921296

I suppose on this day of all days we don't need a reminder of why we have Boots in the Middle East being sent home in bags, and Muslims dying or being stictched up by Coalition doctors, is so that

WE, THE PEOPLE, can post thoughts such as these, according to our rights guaranteed in the First Amen dment: our freedoms of speech.

Which, by the way, happens to protect the Rush's of this land...

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Red highlights are mine.

urm.

Ok. The usual divisive left/right debate.

Great.....

last post on this here, i swear!

1) is all outrage hate? i am outraged by much of what i hear and see, but i don't feel hate. i don't judge what i say to be hateful at all. well. maybe that bit about reprobate..

2) silence the lambs? no. i am having my way by speaking up

3) i think it's important to help add'ers, and have political debate. i got started addressing something political, and let myself get caught up in addressing it here,which granted, isn't the most appropriate forum for it. see my posts elsewhere.

3b) it's not jealousy of rush that drives my passion. it's a deep sense that we could all be better off if we were to debate the ideas, and not just characterise our opposition as inferior minded.

yes, ignorance or stupidity combined with arrogance, pretension, condescending to people or general know it all drives me. No, I don't think I'm smarter
....I would go internally crazy at times…at work almost no one understands what I am doing so some insecure types have decided that they are going to argue with me or tell me what to do or get angry because they don’t know...one day someone started screaming at me on the phone and then slammed it down because when she called b’ing that a web page had not been changed I calmly said “have you refreshed your browser” and she had a fit and started yelling that she had “no time to refresh her browser” which I understood to mean that she had no idea what I was talking about and instead of admitting it had a fit. I’ve never been like that, I mean insecure about my knowledge, if I don’t know something, soooo? Have you guys noticed that? Some people look down on me cause when they ask me something I don’t know I say I don’t know and I’ll have to find out….also, who are more insecure about knowledge, men or woman???

Probably men. e.g. I don't need to read the directions.

[QUOTE=Fallen]no clue whether I'm talking to some punk kid who quit high school or Stephen Hawking.
[/QUOTE]

Who's Stephen Hawking?

[QUOTE=chjones]people i don't have a problem with in the flesh.[/QUOTE]

So what if they have their clothes on? I'm kinda self concsious that way...

hahahahaha, I laughed so hard....
just to say I do love literature but in my mind I can only bear absolute brilliance (one man's...) I love to read lit but I have a really hard time with modern fiction, it just doesn't have (most) that quality, seems lightweight, but there is Rushdie and there are a few others. For me reading was an escape.
But the tv thing
cursing out loud at the thing...rarely watch it now, never have been a big fan...only show I ever watched was Law and Order, even fell off that but I like CBC Newsworld, docs and music....when I have been flicking though I am always aghast and have to change channels as I feel I'm getting upset

BUT
this is my most hated movie thing (and I'm not impressed w/Hollywood, shut it down) I ABSOLUTELY DESPISE MOVIES THAT HAVE FOREIGN PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IN WAR MOVIES (which I really like if they are good) TALKING ENGLISH!!! THIS MAKES ME GO CRAZY. I WALKED OUT OF A MOVIE MY FRIEND THOUGHT I WAS.... who knows...in movies in the early days people would speak German or whatever but not now! How can that be believable? I either can't stop laughing or I'm furious they ruined the movie.

but au naturel is au sau good... no?

as long as you include some artistic food stains i guess i can hack the odd
bit of cloth-covering.

[QUOTE=Davidornado]

[QUOTE=Fallen]no clue whether I'm talking to some punk kid who quit high school or Stephen Hawking.
[/QUOTE]

Who's Stephen Hawking?

[/QUOTE]

His Homepage
Sabina, I'm with you...the worst (for me) is when someone acts like they are rightt when they aren't.

My grandpa used to say, "When you are wrong, but you think you are right, you are WRONG,WRONG, WRONG!"

I can handle being condescended to or yelled at (to some extent) if the person is right, but they'd better locate a fire proof suit if it turns out they are wrong and they talked to me that way.

very much!

it was worse before i understood i was add, and how it influences my behaviour and reactions. i was always 'justifiably' mad at someone or other.

it took me awhile, but last year as it became clear that all these things i was suffering were add, i have been able on most occasions to rein myself in before i was off to the races.

however, i still struggle with people who are smart, but are oblivious to the fact that smart is not the same as having infallible logic.

i especially get riled up by anyone who keeps pushing hateful ideas, like a rush limbaugh, or bill o'reilly. those are 2 people that have a much higher opinion of their intellect than is warranted. it's too bad their confidence and skillful distortions have so much influence on people that have some intelligence, but can't/won't look behind the curtain to see the facts for themselves.

i have a friend or two that buys all that crap despite having many views that don't align with it at all. how it is they can't even see the disparity between the ideas they personally espouse, and the hateful propaganda they are willing to eschew and spew on me, is baffling.

sometimes it is all i can do to hold myself back. in my mind i have a wwf tag team that restrains me and my mouth, while i frantically try to assemble a calm and rational counter to the ridiculousness and small-mindedness of the half-truths assembled into hateful diatribes.

but see? i'm getting p***** off at just the thought of the stupidity! good thing i'm typing, and not trying to speak!

p.s.-

i use large type and make it blue because it is easier for me to focus on. i'm not usually thinking that loud!

p.p.s. must be a democrat

Hey, Rush is okay. Maybe he's AD like a lot of other in your face people.

BTW, intelligent people do respect what he says. And it's not because they they are stupid...

the worst of what america is, is from failure to respect alternate or opposing views.

Is there not a failure to respect alternate or opposing views on your part, here?

Seeker, have you seen the movie "The Corporation?" I was dragged, but came out going Hmmmm....

I think I have learned THE HARD WAY to save my opinions for the voting booth. And, subjects that are particularly disturbing to me (puppy mills, backyard breeding, irresponsible animal ownership) have been challenge for me to try to learn how to make changes in an effective way. I used to get all worked up and start foaming at the mouth about these subjects, and then realized that I just look like a nut and am alienating people. I admire people who are able to educate effectively, rather than humiliate people. I really do.

I really watch and really study people who know how to communicate in an effective way. One person I especially admire is Judge Milian of The Peoples' Court. I watch her daily. She doesn't just scream rhetorics or homilies--she explains her logic and the law. For all I know, she could even be wrong at times, but I get the idea she would admit it and say something like, "I stand corrected." Her ego seems secure enough to do that.

In college, I majored in human communication AND acting (an emphasis). One of the things I learned is to have a few tricks in your bag and to be flexible communicationally. What is effective in one situation may not be in another.

For example, if you are being assaulted in a parking lot, having a rational conversation probably wouldn't be as effective as launching an all out crazy-ass verbal (and physical) scene that would surprise and deter all but the most determined attacker.

This, however, is probably not your best angle if you are in a work setting.

The problem I have with the Rushes, the Graces, the Jesse Jacksons, the Bill O'Reillys, the Geraldos etc., is that their deliveries incite emotion while squashing dissenting arguments. They get louder and more passionate and drown out any cool, calm, and collected counter arguments which could actually lead to the Best solution to a problem (according to group decision-making theories).

It is sort of satisfying to hear them rant, rave, and froth if you are in agreement, but when you're not, it's beyond offensive. But, it's frustrating to know that sometimes their half-cocked information is influencing a lot of uninformed people who are only influenced by passionate delivery alone; they are not likely to investigate the truth themselves. Unfortunately, I think sensationalism wins in a passive tv-watching population (not all of us are this way, but I'm sure you can think of a few people who are).

I was a HUGE talk radio fan--All Aboard! the Rush, O'Reilly, and even Michael Moore trains for me...until I realized the manipulation of their delivery. I prefer to find neutral ways to view and consider information and make a decision on my own.

Given that I have ADHD, I seem especially susceptible to getting whipped up by these types of personalities. The upside is that these kind of people are gifted at generating action (donations, for example), but the Tom Cruises of the world are a good example of making an ass of himself. (Ok, I should have been more diplomatic about Tom, but I can't think of a better way to say it at the moment.)

bb

bluebird3838606.3625578704p.s. It's also a good strategy to use if you know you don't have a leg to stand on--try getting loud and indignant. heh heh

ya know it's interesting that fascism - as defined by Mussolini and he
invented it so he should know i guess - is simply a political system where
the state works together with and supports the interests of big business
(against that of the workers/unions/individuals) for their mutual benefit.
(i mean roughly i am not an expert)

and as a foreigner it is perhaps a bit cheeky to say it... but the current
administration looks as if it is being run on fairly fascist lines in america.
(i know it is awful when an outsider criticises --- it's not really a criticism
more of an uninformed observation).

personally have always held the belief that the best govts (and people in
fact) can be judged by how they treat the weakest in society (the old,
the weak, the least able, the poor and marginalised etc.) whether they
protect and uphold them or abuse and exploit them.

and that if you have a govt that merely supports the strong against the
interests of the weak then it is nothing more than institutionalised
anarchy --- a mafia. it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak and
if a govt rather prefers merely to enrich itself and a small elite at their
expense it is not worth having a govt at all... because it is fundamentally
not doing its job (in my view of govt!).

the only thing i know about rush limbaugh (not living over here) is that he
was a 'drug addicts should all be locked up and the key thrown away' type
- until of course he was found addicted to and illicitly getting oxycodin....

a frightful, dishonest hypocrite... but i have never in fact
heard him talk so it is difficult to say.

i think many 'rush limbaugh-types' if i can put it that way and perhaps
like most of us... start with an already formed point of view and then twist
the facts to fit it - rather than seeking just to see the truth of any given
situation from a neutral point of view.

and they/we seek to find a system in which 'their' personality-type would
most benefit. for rush, perhaps as a strong personality, he would never
end up as an 'exploited' person therefore he favours a system in which he
can exploit others and make himself rich and powerful at their expense
and resents a liberal attitude which will limit his 'freedom' to be an
exploiter????

i am liberal by nature too - but as you said above i agree we ALL need
each other. exploitative driven types push the boundaries, are wealth
generators, less entrepreneurial types appreciate job creation, creative
scientists types rely on capitalistic wealth systems in order to be able
progress and also on liberal values to allow them to research more than
just money-making schemes, capitalists appreciate (and will pay vast
sums for) beauty, music, art etc. rely on workers for profit generation and
so on.... liberals of course advance humanity by leaps and bounds (well, i
would say that! but as seeker put above pretty hard case to refute).

mutual respect and tolerance (hahaha i can hear a rush limbaugh-type
loading up his gun to shoot down another pesky hippy-liberal)..... and
consideration for others before oneself - why not?

i was watching some program the other day on tv with the power and
energy board --- talking about american energy resources/gas prices
and hurricane katrina (did anyone see it?) there was a republican speaker
of the house (Barton??) with a very southern accent but despite his
obvious allegiance to Bush - he allowed each and every democrat to stand
up and have their 3min say as to how disgusted they had been by the
govt response etc. etc. without ever cutting them short or biasing the
time given to republicans against that of democrats. kept fair, polite and
courteous to everyone.....

to me an excellent example of a tolerance and respect for dissenting and
opposing views.

balance is the key i guess. i read a statistic somewhere (can't vouch for
its veracity) which said 100-odd years ago in america 80% of the
workforce was self-employed and only 20% bureaucrats/civil servants/
few others were employees. now that statistic has reversed and 80% of
the workforce is now employed and only 20% self-employed.... and along
with that 45% of the wealth in america is now held by 2% of the
population.

it seems as if it is nothing more than a return to the feudalistic society
the original emigrants fled to america to avoid... just a more modern
version of it.
chjones38606.3725810185'm having a hard time w/this. I agree w/seeker; though I think the general population of NA is so brainwashed anyway…even conservatives don't know what the gov't is really doing? And, who can condone child labour or hate toward those less fortunate? Anyway,. from what I hear your pres has an ever falling rating as more of you realize that your beautiful sons (any woman?) are dying everyday. My heart breaks for the families.

In my mind this entire economy is a destructive force.
I think all politics is so evilized that when well meaning people get into office they have to become part of the system or perish. Someone like Paul Wellstone was unique.
And, didn't Rush spend a lot of time crucifying drug addicts and people who took drugs on his shows and it turns out......he's an addict! (is this right?) Please...send all hypocretans to the moon, they are the bane of my existence...there is an epidemic here in lalaland....DO as I say say say over and over and over but not as I DO (cause I do the opposite, cause I'm so special and I just like to blab off at the mouth)
I ONLY WANT NICE AND KIND AND FUNNY AND WITTY AND SMART AND WISE AND ADVENTEROUS AND WACKY PLEOPLE around me!!!!

I have learned to internalize my feelings when confronted w/ignorance especially when combined with overt insecurity resulting in obnoxious behaviour or words but what happens is all the stuff inside me seeps out and results in ME ROLLING MY EYES!!!

Lololololol, I’ve been caught too!!!

you guys posted just as I posted! So, I was right about Rush! You see, for me, that disqualifies him from ever having any validity for the rest of his sorry life. I can't stand when people point fingers; do you know the grief and trouble he caused for some people w/his diatribes? He should have his big mouth taped shut. What a loser!

i would gladly consider rush's views if not for the fact that his main thrust is to be bombastic and derisive. i listen to him ,and other right wing spokesmen on a regular basis for the simple reason i want to have my views challenged in order to grow closer to the truth, to have opinions based on facts.

my motto (as practiced in my life) is: i would not join a club that would have me as a member.

i find it disheartening that by and far, the typical rush fan views those 'dirty liberals' as the ENEMY! for me, the only enemies are those that would lie and manipulate to forward their views, obscuring a true dialogue. half this country is not the enemy of the other half.

i'm feeling a little uncomfortable that i have kind of hijacked this thread, and i'm going to stop posting on this political topic.

my e-mail is chrstof@msn.com for anyone who would like to continue a dialogue on this non-add conversation.

no offense intended about the rush thing. i just find he starts with a partial truth, marries it to rumor, and comes up with some creative, but misleading notions.

further, part of my frustration with him is that there are some intelligent people that respect his views. it's that they accept his slurs at face value. he maligns people, misquotes facts, mischaracterises ideas all the time. he says "liberal" like nazis say "jew", and klansmen say "nigger". that's what hate speech is, not voicing an opinion unfavorable to the current leadership.(btw- saddam, stalin, and a host of other leaders enforced the notion that questioning the gov't was unpatriotic- i suppose we should follow their example?)

anyone who hates liberals(even by the skewed vote, about half the country), as he frequently reminds us he does, should sit down and read some american history. the bill of rights, the end of slavery, child labor protection, women's vote, no national proscribed religion, the new deal, the g.i. bill (which both contributed mightily to the largest growth in industry, college education, housing boom, technology from an educated populace the planet has ever seen, and helped secure our world dominance) all came from liberal, or rather progressive, thought.

moreover, i don't hate conservatives, though i differ in philosophy in many areas. without the push and pull of differing views, america would not be the best of what it is.

if the "conservatives" had run things unchecked, people could still turned into property, women would definitely still be property unable to own anything or have self-determination, we'd all be fundamentalist christian by law, banks would be charging usurious interest rates, only whites could run gov't or own anything of value, our economy would expand mostly through conquering other lands and exploiting the native people and natural resources, children would populate the factories and streets untended, labor would have no holidays, be paid pennies for working 14 hr. days, 6 days a wk., and all but the rich entitled people would be illiterate, cancer and other pollution related disease would be rampant, and much of america would be made up of filthy crime ridden shantytowns. in fact, we might still be subjects of the english crown.(remember- conservative means to keep things the way they were)

the worst of what america is, is from failure to respect alternate or opposing views. and unchecked greed.

so, i am more democrat than not, but both parties spend more effort representing the corporate self-interests than "we the people".

not with people --- i have yet to meet anyone whom i didn't think was
smarter than me. because i just don't get things waayyy too much of the
time - and everyone else seems just to understand better and i simply
don't...

having said that i go completely the other way with literature, tv, radio... i
cannot bear to watch tv. every single person seems such a complete
moron, all the plots seem so obvious, boring, contrived, unpleasant,
shouty, drivelling bollocks that i actually get offended watching it. i
cannot, simply cannot watch.

the same goes for literature - i love some philosophy and some religion.
i like Plato and Shakespeare and Primo Levi and a select few others
normally biographies and non-fiction.... the rest (not all of it but a lot of
it) i can't face - it's pointless/obvious/irrelevant/irritating - everything i
can't bear. i actually get furious to the point of throwing the book into
the bin with a curse.... genuinely angry. and storm around the room
going stupid/stupid/stupid!

people i don't have a problem with in the flesh.

but the moment they fictionalise themselves into a sitcom/movie/book - i
am the most cantankerous, miserable, judgemental critic there is - and i
hate them all!!!!!! rubbish! i hate it if it is violent; i hate it if it is obvious,
whining, annoying, petulant, unfunny, try-hard, dishonest, shouty, angry
or boring.

(oh boy, where is the love... where is the love?)

some plays - arthur miller death of a salesman (there was a man suffering
-eh?) fantastic. oh, plenty of amazing stuff out there.
but tv can be the worst i cannot watch anything except where people are
not acting - the bloomberg news/bbc parliament/whatever it is here that
i have found cs scan??? around about 335 or something where they just
tend to talk politics and the next channel they talk books a lot (those are
ok) but it is real... even the history channel and other what should be
learning/interesting things the voiceovers can set me off... if they are
done in a patronising or overtly obvious - yeah, its the obvious that sets
my nerves on fire like someone running their fingernails down a
blackboard.

the rest, excepting the simpsons and the odd funny thing/cartoon - i not
only can't face i simply get offended. i am offended. it is ridiculous! i
realise this. it is ridiculous to be offended by a stupid tv show but i am
and i can't bear them.... they offend my sensibillities somewhere and
upset me!!!???!

and if someone insists on watching something - i can't stay in the room.
i have to leave it gets me that much. i can't face it! well, there you go
and i thought that that was just my particularly difficult personality but i
might as well chalk it up to the add - why not?

sorry- one last comment. it is true that 2% of us in america control at least 45% of the wealth. then, why are they not asked to pay at least (if not more, as it hardly impinges on their standard of living) that much of the overall burden in taxes?

again, my type is so large so i can read it comfortably. the next size smaller, as in posts above, makes my eyes go blurry as if i'm looking at a patch of tiny polka-dots, or a test pattern or something. that may be why i can't read books for very long periods in a sitting.

Yeah, he's right, so I left...