Doug:

Re Cyrena, you said: “In short, as regards your continued criticism of others from a psychological viewpoint, you are admitting to the very dysfuntions that you are accusing them of. Any qualified psychologist would confirm that for you.  Thus, what you see is your neoroses and your aggressions and your being lost. Can you not understand that?”

Thank you.  I had actually thought about saying exactly that, but knew that it would only give her more fodder for her toy cannon (the one that shoots blanks).

And given the almost complete inanity (insanity?) of her latest diatribe re my post, I am convinced that she has a great number of “issues” that she has never worked through, and that those issues come out here, where it is relatively “safe” for her. Indeed, it is not just the “dysfunctions” that she is tacitly admitting are true of herself by accusing others, but even some of the non-psychological things.

For example, her accusation that I “cannot see the forest for the trees” and miss “the big picture.” This would be laughable if it were not so sad. Because if anyone on these boards has consistently shown a limited, myopic approach to things, it is her - despite her quasi-intellectual, quasi-professorial attempts to show how erudite she is.  I am constantly catching her in the most unnecessary and ridiculous errors, not least because, as I have pointed out (correctly) ad nauseam, she simply refuses to take the time to do even the most basic research before making claims and statements.  She could save herself alot of unnecessarily looking foolish if she checked things BEFORE she said them; all she would need to do is plug in two or three key words in Google.

A perfect example: “And, the longer I thought, and even got up to search, I could not find a SINGLE SOLITARY TIME that Hillary Clinton has been to New Orleans since Katrina.  Now, please feel free, (anybody) to point out where I may have missed a visit to New Orleans, by Hillary Clinton, in the aftermath of Katrina, OR ANY TIME SINCE.”

She “could not find a single solitary time.” Yet I went to Google and simply plugged in “Hillary Katrina Visit” and IMMEDIATELY found at least two times that she visited NO after Katrina - including one in which she laid out a comprehensive plan for helping the people there and bringing the city back.

How much research could Cyrena have done NOT to find “a single solitary time” when it took me all of 10 seconds?  Yet she makes statements like the above - in which she uses caps to increase the level of her Hillary-bashing - and has done so many times.

Cyrena is a classic example of a person who is SO myopic in her opinions and feelings that, as I correctly predicted, she found a way to rationalize and justify Obama’s non-attendance at the NO forum, and she maintains an “I"ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts” mindset.  Indeed, as you just saw, she even rationalized Obama’s acceptance of over $9 million from lawyers by saying, “I don’t care.” But she certainly DOES care when Hillary does the same.  And she has said so, though I am sure she will deny THAT as well.  (Funny thing, that: if Obama is the candidate who doesn’t represent the “special interests” - and he took more money from, for example, the energy industry than any other candidate - then what, exactly, is a “special interest?” Apparently, Cyrena defines it pretty narrowly...)

So much for having an intelligent or reasoned debate with her.  I agree: I hope she is seeing someone re working out her anger issues.

Peace.

Part 1 of 2
Maani,

You are SUCH a neurotic! The mental myopic disorder for you is serious. I’m sorry. I can’t help you with it. You’re the proverbial ‘lost in the forest’ guy, and will be forever it seems. Do you get what that means, when someone is ‘unable to see the forest for the trees’?

It means that there is a huge forest. And, rather than you being in a mental position, (say the view from above) to see the ENTIRE forest, as a collection of trees and other plants or sticks or leaves, etc, etc, and how they all form to create this forest, you are sitting at one tree, picking the bark off of it, then you move around to examine a leaf, and you don’t have a flippin’ clue about anything else going on around you.  You have no idea how any of the roots connect, or what the purpose of the bark is, or how any one of them interacts with the other, to create that larger picture.

And so it is. You interpret everything from this one myopic view point, and make the assumption that everyone else is seeing it the same way. I don’t know if it’s because you’re bored, or stupid. But the details that you focus on are simply not even worthy of attention. By doing that, you waste incredible amounts of time and energy, just like you waste incredible amounts of time examining a single tree in a forest.

For instance. NO. I wasn’t using Al Sharpton’s comment as a basis for my ‘argument’ because it wasn’t an argument that I was making. It was an observation, and a RESPONSE observation at that. You (and others) were going on and on about something incredibly trivial, and I made that observation. Obama is not in New Orleans right now. SO WHAT? WHO CARES? Do the people of New Orleans care? Probably NOT. Why? Because the disaster of Katrina happened to them exactly 2 ½ years ago, TODAY, and Obama has been there many times since then. THIS time, he won’t be there; for WHATEVER the reasons. There is NOTHING to ‘celebrate’ in MSY. They USED to celebrate there at this time of the year, and even if that were still possible, Lent began Wednesday. There is only misery and work there. If Hillary or any of the rest of them wanna do some of it, that’s spiffy. I have my doubts.

So, why are you telling us about air routes I’ve flown between Texas and Louisiana many, many times? Do you want me to chauffer him there, or give you a flight plan of high and low altitude airways? Do you want to hire us for Obama, even though he’s already decided he’s not making that trip, REGARDLESS of the days on the calendar? Are you his campaign travel coordinator? This is what I mean about your neurotic myopia. You just talk to say something, even though it has zero significance to anything.

Then you move along, again saying nothing, to suggest that I have ‘convincingly proved’ your argument. You are a moron Maani. I haven’t convincingly ‘proved’ your argument because I’m not making ‘arguments’ here, and YOU haven’t even convincingly proved any of your arguments, because none of what you call ‘arguments’ have anything to do with anything!!

Example, you’ve mentioned a few dozen times, that Obama failed to keep his promise to the people, (I paraphrase) to complete his senate term, as if we (the electorate) should maybe put him in jail for it. WHAT PEOPLE Maani? YOU are a NY resident. WHY do you care? The people of Illinois elected Obama to represent THEMin Congress. And for now, THAT’S WHAT HE’S DOING! If he’s running for the office of president as well, IT IS APPARENTLY WITH THEIR BLESSING. The State overwhelmingly voted for him in their primary election. AGAIN I ask, WHAT IS YOUR POINT, other than to come across as a whining hag or a whining kid who didn’t get the ice cream flavor he demanded? Or worse, YOU DID get the ice cream flavor that YOU demanded, but some other person or entity didn’t get the flavor that YOU decided THEY were supposed to have, even though they may not have even wanted any flippin’ ice cream AT ALL!

Maani Part 2 of 2

You’ve also told us repeatedly, that Obama has ‘taken money’ from law firms. According to YOU, it has been ‘less than’ Hillary Clinton, but that he has still accepted campaign donations from that ‘industry’. I don’t call the legal profession an ‘industry’, but I won’t deny that a large percentage of those practicing, DO serve the corporate oligarchy. So, maybe you’re right. I don’t know, because I don’t keep track, and because I DON’T CARE. I don’t care because it isn’t REMARKABLE.

So again, HOW IS THAT INTERESTING OR RELEVANT, and WHAT IS YOUR POINT? They are both attorneys. Hillary has not ‘formally practiced’ her CORPORATE lawyer specialty since she left the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas many years ago. Still, she obviously uses her ‘attorney’ skills, and includes them in her resume. WHY is it strange to you then, that she or Obama (for the same reasons), would receive campaign contributions from this group of professionals? Obama has actually continued to practice his chosen profession (the Civil Rights area of the law) since he’s been out of law school, and he has taught the same in the academic establishments.  Again, HOW IS THIS ODD, OR UNUSUAL?

He is also supported by Labor. The SEIU, the Teamsters. I could go on. This is the stuff of US campaigns and elections Maani. Are they ‘special interest groups”? Yeah, to the people who are in them, (labors in this case) they are.

Meantime, your tortured game of semantics has you so twisted up, that you don’t know whether to shit or blow your nose. You think you’re having a legitimate ‘argument’ with somebody, (me or anyone) except that if the person you think you’re arguing with isn’t engaged, or doesn’t otherwise see it as a legitimate or substantive argument, you’ve lost before you start. You can’t have a ‘fight’ Maani, until you have an adversary. You can’t have a ‘competition’ if there are no competitors. And, while I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, I’ve told you a more than a few times, that I am NOT a competitor here, to compete with you or anyone else. I am NOT presenting ‘arguments’ here as one would present in a court of law, based on the interrelation between the law and facts in evidence. I am NOT presenting an argument to support a ‘thesis’ as I would if I were actually writing something for publication in my own field. Maani…it’s a flippin BLOG!! An electronically transmitted communication. That’s IT Maani. GET OVER YOURSELF!

People here offer OBSERVATIONS. They share INFORMATION. Some of the information is helpful (to me and others) and some of it has relevance to whatever the subject matter is. Sometimes it doesn’t. Yours is generally irrelevant, (at least to me) because it’s wasted ink on what are generally considered to be wedge issues, which are ideological in nature. They lack any substance or means of connection. Like I said, you just write to be writing, like it was a gossip column or something.

Now, here’s a link to a short essay from Howard Zinn. I thought it was good. Some others here may enjoy it as well. Even you. If you’d like to read it, the link is here. If you DON’T want to read it, that’s quite all right as well.

Election Madness
By Howard Zinn
The Progressive

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022108B.shtml

Here’s another one that I found particularly relevant. Again…that’s just MY opinion.

Where’s the Substance?
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021808Z.shtml

I wonder where Sharpton was when the Guinea Pig Kids scandal was exposed in NYC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/40383 75.stm

These types would be out of a job if there was a sudden cure to racism, hence there will always be racism. I recall how Margaret Sanger spoke on giving black people false black leaders, who would direct them off a cliff.

http://blackinformant.com/?s=machina

It was in 1939 that Sanger’s larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger’s organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled “Suggestion for Negro Project.” Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in charge as it was at an Atlanta conference.b>
It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with “contributions” to come from other local cooperating ministers. A “colored nurse” would follow, supported by a subsidized “colored doctor.” Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.
Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” money for two “Negro Project” demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary.

Sharpton will be hot the latest white on black dust up, while larger numbers of black children are being imperiled by a system propelled by eugenic motives. This Sharpton is a real clown.

What the H*** does this have to do with Robinson’s valid and interesting question?  Who give’s a $#** about citric acid versus whether Clinton should be dropping from the Presidential race?

Always someone as grinding some ax for what they are interested in.

When are the “It’s a Zionist plot!” tin-foil hatters going to leap in?