You really should try reading it and seeing if you don't agree with a lot of what the article states. You've become way to one-dimensional in your response to these types of articles for anyone to really take you serious at this point.

im sorry, i dont know what i was thinking, will you ever forgive me?

With every post you make you basically reinforce the fact that you have the mentality of a 12 yr. old.

obviously youre under some delusion that i give a rats ass, i assure you, i dont

It's obvious you don't give a rat's ass; all I ask is that when you post in News & Debate, try debating by using facts and critical thinking as opposed to reciting the same "Sigh, typical Bush Bashing..." response. Seriously thats been your knee jerk response to nearly everything I've seen on this board that calls Bush into question. Its lazy and stupid.

dont like it then dont read it, i skimmed over the article and came to the conclusion, and i have yet to see anyone really say im wrong

Where you are wrong is in your ability to completely dismiss the article without taking any time to consider its contents or investigate its claims, instead taking the lazy & stupid route and saying "meh, typical Bush bashing..."

just answer the question, was i far off?

To be honest with you, you may be completly correct in your assessment of the article, what I call into question is your willfully ignorant aproach to determining what the truth of a given situation may be. The article makes claims that the gov't under the current administration is becoming consolidated to the point that only a select few individuals are able to actually influence the direction or actions of our country. I am not immediatly able to determine if all of Hersh's claims are true or not because I don't have access to all of the information that he is privy to as a journalist whose entire profession is built around investigating & digging for truth and facts amongst all the propaganda, but I certainly am not arrogant enough to skim over the article and then dismiss the entire thing as being complete fabrication.

where did i once say it was fabricated? now youre making me question your ability to read what people posted, instead you go straight for the, oh he thinks its a typical bush bashing article.

i called bullshit on the whole cult aspect, and proved that its not a cult in the fact that the american people voted for dubya, cult leaders dont get elected, they appoint themselves.

now, if the author of this thread had titled it something differently, who knows, but its the same typical bullshit that is posted here every week, go look at the lady gets arrested for the bumper sticker thread.

she was warned over the word FUCK on her car, not bush, but again, they want to make it seem like its all bush's fault, and thats total bullshit, so excuse me if i have a little bit of disillusion to some of the shit thats posted on here, but thats just what it is

Can we please keep this on topic now that everyone has vented?

--PunkDavid

If you want to debate the semantics of the title of the article,

cult ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klt)
n.

-A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

-The followers of such a religion or sect.

-A system or community of religious worship and ritual.

-The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.

-A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

-Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

-The object of such devotion.

-An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

Its my opinion that enought of these descriptions apply to the situation that the author would reasonably be allowed to use the term "cult" to describe the situation as it is brought to light in his article.

In addition, the author isn't suggesting that the American people comprise the membership of the cult. If you had read the article you might realize this.



Did you discover the fact about why the lady was warned during your interview with the cop after the event occured?




Unless of course you have a life long history of taking over things that have been given to you and then systematically running them into the ground due to poor decision making and fiscal irresposibility....

Hey, wait a minute....[/quote]

its my opinion it doesnt

show me a documented case where a cult leader is elected and hasnt appointed himself


lets see jim jones? nope

charlie manson? nope

the fucktard at the branch davidian(sp)? nope

george w bush? elected by the majority of the american people, check

by using the defintion of cult (Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.), then you belong to a cult, i belong to a cult, and every other member of this board belongs to a cult



i never said once the american people did? way to make things up. i said the author of the article believes that george and company are what makes up the cult, and again, i stated, dubya was elected, not self proclaimed.

is any of this getting through to you?

When you get a chance, go back read the article, re-read all of my posts and see if you can catch up. You've completely gone off the rails at this point.

whats the title of this thread?



its not a cult, it is a small group of people who were elected by millions of american citizens, what arent you getting?

If Jim Jones had been mayor of San Francisco when he started his cult, would he be disqualified from being identified as a cult leader due to his status as an elected official? What aren't you getting?

Also that small group of people? Only 2 were elected, the rest of the assholes were appointed.

hypothetically speaking.

he forms the cult before he was elected?

then fine, hes a cult leader who was elected mayor of san fran. whats so hard to determine about that?

just because hes a cult leader doesnt make him the mayor of san fran, just by the same stance that because he is mayor of san fran doesnt make him the leader of his cult. the two positions are totally unrelated.

now, if he started his own small town, declared himself the leader of his cult, and held a bogus election and used his influence of his followers to make him leader, then theres your slippery slope

Nice. Can't back up your original argument so you resort to posting gibberish. Or are you really this stupid?

seriously, your name should be stanley, cause youre the biggest fucking tool on this board

Funny I was thinking the same thing about you. If you can look back through your last post, the one that I referred to as gibberish, and explain how any of what you stated proved any point or brought any thing of substance to the discussion then please do so, because it is lost on me. Hell I invite any one on this board to draw any conclusions as to what your point was in that post. If someone can dig through it and explain it to me I'll gladly take back what I said.