User talk:MONGO/Archive01

---

George W. Bush and Hatfield's allegations

Someone has restored the section you have repeatedly removed, so I've edited it to clarify the source of the allegations. Hatfield said he confirmed the cocaine bust story with unnamed sources close to the Bush family. Not having the sources, and without any records to support the story, we cannot say whether Hatfield's allegations are true or false. They're plausible, however, and not something that should just be kicked under the carpet.

Rather than a partisan approach, Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view (NPOV). The essence of this can be expressed as follows: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves". The founder, Jimmy Wales. has described the neutral point of view principle on Wikipedia as "non-negotiable". It's a rule we must all follow as contributors.

If as appears to me you are fairly new to Wikipedia, you may find this a little difficult to get used to, but I urge you to watch how talk pages are used to iron out differences of opinion so that a form of words that conforms to NPOV can be found. If you have problems with the current form of words--for instance, you seem to be concerned that allegations are being treated as facts rather than opinions--please join the discussion on Talk:George W. Bush. We should be able to work something out without engaging in edit wars. Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plausible doesn't cut it

I disagree in regards to the George Bush article. J.H. Hatfield's book has no proven facts, only assertions and inuendo. Therefore, in an effort to be NPOV I still continue to state that the reference to this book and the allegations of cocaine use by President George Bush are not what I can say are good examples of NPOV. They are instead placed in the article purely from the standpoint of POV and that POV is an effort to slander, not an effort to educate. With that much said, and in light of the fact that I obviously have a serious difference in perspective with the major contributors to the George Bush article, I would like to clearly state that I feel that this one point is only a minute part of the problem with that article. I feel that the entire article is rubbish and beyond any hope of repair because the major contributors are those that have a POV of dislike of George Bush to an extreme and it is impossible for them to adopt a NPOV. MONGO

I've already laid out the essence of NPOV for you. It's "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." So in my edit to the restored paragraph about Hatfield's allegations I gave more background detail (the circulated email discussed in Salon, the three people close to the Bush family that Hatfield claimed acknowledged the story of the alleged coke bust and coverup). The section also contains information about the revelations about Hatfield's felony conviction, which effectively killed his credibility and probably led to his suicide. I do this because it constituted a significant investigation of moderately serious allegations about George W. Bush's early adult life; to leave it out would be a serious omission.

If you think I've got the balance of facts, or facts about opinions, wrong, feel free to obtain more facts, or facts about opinions, and add them. Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discrediting Hatfield

Jeez... are we writing an article about George Bush here or someone else? I don't care to further discredit Hatfield, he did that for himself, and wrote the book just to make a buck...would anyone buy it if he didn't have slander to sell? The article isn't worthy of any credit as far as being a worthwhile enterprise of research...it is just too leftist, angry and well, the main contributors are biased beyond hope. MONGO

Could you explain which parts of the article you think are leftist and which parts appear to be angry? I have to admit that the article seems to my tastes to be, if anything, a little dry, but is refreshingly free of the hectoring tones of left and right partisan propaganda. But if you could give an example perhaps we could discuss it. Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Leftist redundancy

Tony...let's explain so you understand...I think this entire GEORGE BUSH article reeks of leftist redundancy and I am not going to detail it for you. I can say that I would NEVER recommend this source as a point of reference for anyone doing legitimate research on George Bush. I stated that there are published articles, books and related material that portray Adolph Hitler as a different man than the one we know to be true and that these articles are so ridiculous that we would never even mention them on any Wiki page about that man. We accept Hitler as the one of the biggest mistakes of evolution and as a matter of providing a factual based accord of his misdeeds, these published books which cast him in a completely different light and are without basis in fact, are OMITTED. But this rule doesn't apply for the major contributors to the George Bush article. Repeatedly, ad nauseum, references are made that attempt to show that George Bush is a cocaine user or at least was, that he is still a drunk and these references are all from questionable sources. My opponents in this seem to think that the allegations are admissible based on the fact that someone said them...and therefore follow WIKI rules...I say, they are to be OMITTED because they are of a questionable source that has no PROOF and unless it can be shown to be TRUE, they have no place here. I say that they are in the article because the major contributors are leftist and are anti Bush and therefore there is no hope they can be swayed. MONGO 13:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea for writing an encyclopedia--omit all opinions that are not provable--but would be rather difficult to implement. We wouldn't be able to report Adolf Hitler's belief that the Jews were an inferior race because that cannot be proven. We wouldn't be able to report on any politicians' opinions at all except perhaps very old ones and then only that portion of their beliefs that had been proven true by events. The allegations of criminal conduct by President Clinton and Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater scandal? Special Prosecutor Ray reported to Congress: "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct." The Whitewater allegations could not stand in a court of law, so we could not report them. Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

Haven't you heard of Hitler's book Mein Kamph? Perhaps it wasn't spoken that Hitler was anti semtic, but it certainly was spoken that he believed the "Aryan" peoples to be superior to all others. The whitewater scandal is like comparing a mountain to an anthill to the alleged cocaine use by George Bush. Sure, it was proven that there was reasonable doubt that the Clintons had nothing to do with the allegations yet it is reported because it is of a different magnitude. Grand jury investigations, millions and millions of your tax dollars, special prosecutors sure do sound to me to be a little bit more serious than the writings of a convicted felon whose book was pulled from shelfs and a known leftist enterprise such as Salon which has operated on a narrow margin, needs money or attention and has an axe to grind. MONGO 10:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it...at all. This article is a worthless rag and the only place it is acceptable is here. I'm not going to discuss it any further and you can say whatever you wish as my opinion is different which means that since it is in opposition to yours, we are at an impasse. It is unfortunate that preposterous rubbish like this can be used in what is to be considered a point of reference and is, along with a considerable more unsubstantiated baloney, included in this article. MONGO 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers and books use confidential sources all the time. That's usually the only way to get the dirt -- otherwise nobody would talk. It's an accepted, legitimate practice in journalism. By all means, discredit it (in NPOV language of course), but it was a big enough controversy that it needs to be included. Timbo 19:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should not surprise me (although it does) that you can characterize Salon as any kind of leftist enterprise. Goodness, if you ever found a copy of New Statesman, you'd run out of words to describe it. As for The Morning Star, you'd be absolutely speechless. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I find CBS news to be leftist. I consider all of Hollywood to be leftist. I consider Micheal Moore to be a scary leftist. I do not fear these people, but in fact, I think they are extremists. If you read my user page, and fail to see that I set it up to be preposterous, then you miss my point. Folks that call the George Bush article good editing or sound research, folks like Michael Moore and loud mouthed Hollywood types that need to stick to acting, make people like me become MORE conservative. On a political spectrum, our country is far more liberal than it was even 20 years ago. Kennedy would have definitely been to the right of Clinton. Truman would have been to the right of Kennedy, Wilson would have been to the right of Truman. That modern day hollywood types and leftist rags can refer to Bush as an ultra conservative is absurd. He is only so in light of modern politics and would have been a liberal if he held the same perspectives even 50 years ago. He is, however far right of anyone since Reagan, though probably not more so. MONGO 07:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've got a clearer picture of your point of view now. However from an external perspective things look very different It seems clear to most outsiders that US politics has become extremely right wing in the past thirty years or so. The public demands ever more savage prison sentences, welfare provision is attacked, moves to a comprehensive health service are widely regarded as political suicide, senior politicians openly contemplate a federal amendment banning gay marriage, political parties favor an interventionist foreign policy characteristic of the extreme right rather than the moderate right (which is usually isolationist or at least in favor of actions in favor of a narrowly defined national interest), the word "liberal" acquires the status of a swearword, frequent challenges are made to the rights of the individual (for instance, attempt to introduce a flag burning amendment, somewhat successful attempts by the Executive to imprison citizens without trial and without full access to legal representation). Although I'm aware that these changes are not monolithic and are the product of distinct and sometimes antagonistic social movements, to outsiders these changes make the USA appear to be galloping quickly rightwards.

It is my belief that this difference in perception on where the political center lies may be coloring your view of the Bush article. On whether it really is socialist propaganda I don't know. I'm pretty sure that anybody who likes to can edit that article, but it's possible that socialists feel more motivated to edit it than those of the center or right. And they may be more successful in driving an anti-Bush agenda and getting it accepted. It looks okay to me, but then again my politics are considerably further to the left than one person whom you have described as a "scary leftist", so my perceptions may be colored by my politics.

All I can do is encourage you to continue contributing your critiques on the article, and your edits, which I assure you I and others will take seriously provided they are not accompanied by personal slurs. Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem like there are more and more loonies everyday? The aggregate center of political opinion is so far left of the aggregate center of political opinion, that soon we will be overrun by extremists left-wing loony conspiracy-theorists! Personally, I think it's a conspiracy by the media, which is 90% bias to the left. Kevin Baas|talk 21:29, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Slanders

It wasn't that big a controversy....the fact that the slanders were ever published were the controversy or did you sleep through that part when the "big story broke". --MONGO 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend you visit Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. You're not going to convince other people that you're right by being patronizing and rude. I hope you can separate yourself from your political persuasion and actually contribute constructively. Timbo ( t a l k ) 21:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, let's see, I didn't think I was hot or rude, quite the contrary. I feel that the warnings and etc. I have gotten such as this from you are rude as I don't remember going into your talk page and handing out advice on courtesy. I fail to see how the slander that constitutes the George Bush article is anything other than the political persuasion of the far left and fail to see how the incorporation of so much inuendo and heresay makes for good reporting. Perhaps it is the likes of your political persuasion that won't allow you to edit the article with a NPOV, not mine. As I mentioned, I consider this an impossible impasse.--MONGO 10:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Unless you assume good faith, there's no way you'll be able to work with others. You might be surprised to hear this, but you can't rewrite the article to suit your own POV. This is a community. Timbo ( t a l k ) 17:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can rewrite the article to fit my POV because I choose to eliminate National Enquirer type of reporting which is not quantifable and not pertainent except to those that wish to see Bush slandered. It is you and the leftist that seem to think that only their misconceptions are valid. I encourage you to switch your battle to the main discussion pages of the article on George Bush rather than continue to make private personal attacks here in my user page. MONGO 20:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is your user talk page. An item written here is a way of communicating with you on a one-to-one basis, and is commonly used for dealing with interpersonal stuff such as reminding a user of Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

This article can be edited by anyone, they don't even have to be a logged in user, and yet you claim that it shows what you call an extreme leftist bias. How does that work? Is everybody who works on this article, or even the majority, a "leftist"? Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, this has become a tit for tat and as I have said before, it is an impossible impasse. I'm sure you won't change your mind because of anything I say, and I know nothing you have to say will change mine. In my eyes, the article is written with a bias and that bais is left wing. I can't make it any more simple than that. I don't know if the majority of those that work on the article are leftist. I do know that the folks that seem to be protecting the existing document, based on what their user pages state, and on their commentary are not centrist and they sure aren't conservative. Being liberal isn't a bad thing, I am the last person to truly condemn it. But I am in disagreement with that perspective because I think it to be short sighted and unrealistic. MONGO 06:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The price of freedom

My qualms about the vitroil on your user page, and about having vitroil on one's user page in the first place aside, I agree with you on one thing: freedom is expensive. The manner in which it is paid for, however, I differ in opinion on: I agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Kevin Baastalk 08:06, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

My family has fought in every war the USA has been in including the revolution. I myself have two siblings that have gone to both Afghanistan and Iraq in the past 3 years as part of their service to this country. I was so fortunate to not have been eligible to be in harms way due to having been born with only one kidney. Not a day or sometimes an hour goes by that I won't hope they are well, and that their compatriots in arms are as well. I cannot think of what it must feel like to be the parent or spouse or child of those killed in action. We owe a debt to all of them we can never repay. My siblings are educated and not prone to believing propaganda and they both feel that we did the right thing when it comes to Iraq, regardless of the presence of WMD. This world is becoming smaller everyday...how much room is there for governments that pose a threat to their neighbors? Beyond any shadow of doubt in my mind, the USA and it's allies and the entire world were incredibly patient with Saddam Hussein, but the time had come to do something and I do not believe that we could afford to continue with diplomacy. As worded in UN resolution 1441 that meant SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. We had already done everything else we could do...what was left but to go to war? Some have argued that there never were any WMD, that Saddam behaved the way he did because it gave him strength with his people because they admired his defiance. However, WMD's are not something to take an action of wait and see. A leader must lead, regardless of the consequences, and must accept his political fate based on the outcome. It is my hope that democracy will be born in Iraq so that those persons there can begin to enjoy in freedoms the rights most of us in the western world take as normal.--MONGO 11:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevancy of that ramble. It is clear that you have strong emotions on what you are talking about. But your strong emotions are besides the point. The point is what is the gravest threat to freedom, and what, therefore, is the first and most neccessary defense? For example, if one looks at it like a war, as you seem to like doing, then one has only to consult the first page of the first book on war, "Sun Tzu: The Art of War", and read the first line: "War is all about deception." It goes on to talk about assesments and calculations, gathering information, and misinforming and disinforming the enemy. There are no heroic pictures of violent battles in it, but it does go along way into stressing how everything in war hinges on knowledge of the "battlefield". Kevin Baastalk 19:08, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

MY ramble, as you wish to put it, is relevent in light of the simple knowledge that our borders are pourous, and we have more difficulty here maintaining our freedoms, and are in essence less free, if we cannot insure freedom elsewhere. You assume that our leaders, in that our current administration is guided by a feeling of revenge, oil and simplistic things as such which are easy to point at, when the rational for invading Iraq are much more complex. My ramble was an attempt, successfully I feel, to elaborate on the theme that freedom isn't cheap...ie, my family is in active engagement there and in all liklihood I have more to lose than many others may. It was my answer as well to your assumption that we can be protected simply by maintaining vigilance. Vigilance is hard to maintain, and it's easy to get lazy. Sorry, I have no understanding about what you think by invoking the quote that war is all about deception. I doubt that this stage of war is obvious when the planes have already hit the WTC towers....seems at that point the deception is over and the reality should have become obvious. I assume from your quote, that due to his constantly dancing a jig around UN resolutions, that Saddam was being deceptive, and that since we invaded Iraq, we fell for his deception. Or that our current leaders have used deception to put us in this situation.....otherwise, your response is quite academic but lacking in simple realities.--MONGO 19:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The war is a war of ideas. The battlefield of freedom is the mind. I do not assume what you say I assume, rather, you are the one who are assuming: you are assuming my thoughts and motivations. This is an example of the battlefield.

I do not believe that the situation is simple, rather, I believe it is more complex than you have espoused. I believe that Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush, are motivated by the reasons that they state: securing a geopolitical landscape unquestionably favorable to American principles and interests. I have a problem with this. A really, really, really big problem with this. And "I have more to lose than many others may," for I am an American. It feels good to hear the word "freedom", but what does it mean? In the era of World War 2, there were two conflicting definitions of "freedom": Kruschev's and Kennedy's. Kruschev's version was the spread of one ideology, thought to be manifestly superior, throughout the world. He thought it would bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to everyone. He saw it as the future, and believed, therefore, that he was manifestly right in spreading this kind of "freedom" throughout the world. Kennedy defined freedom as political diversity and the flow of ideas. This meant not enforcing American policies on developing nations, but helping them grow through cooperation, and letting them determine their own path. The distinction between these two forms of freedom is subtle, but important. What form of "freedom" do we believe in today, Kruschev's or Kennedy's? I have much more to say in response to what have written, but for fear of spreading the discussion out to thin, I decided to focus on a theme. Kevin Baastalk 20:38, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Well, I get the impression that you allude to Bush's view of freedom as being more similar to Kruschev's than to Kennedy's. I mentioned before that the world in general has become a more liberal place. To wish to instill democracy in Iraq is a liberal hope in light of the fact that they most recently were ruled by a dictator. I can see how, to the outside world that Bush is viewed as a vengeful warmonger, yet I see little precedent for any neocolonialism aside from what happened in Japan in 1945 when MacArthur essentially wrote their constitution for them. I consider the events of 9/11 to be an attack on the western world so all of us have a lot to lose if we allow freedom to fail. It is a traditional train of thought that if you can defeat the big guy on the block, then it makes you the new big guy. I believe that if say France had the economic and military power of the U.S. and was as strong an ally of Israel as the U.S. is, then the target would have been in Paris, not N.Y. I understand that many might feel that Bush would wish to control and regulate other countries, espcially in the third world, yet there is little precedent for our intervention aside from when requested, when the action will improve stability, or when it is mandatory... All comments of Vietnam aside. It is possible that due to the ever expanding population, vast improvements in transportation, ever increasing technology and extremist groups that wish to return some areas of the world to a barbarious state, that intervention may be necessary to ensure world security....and that the net result may be the establishment of a government which is friendly to the U.S., which by the way, will most likely be friendly it's neighbors. If you suggest that Afghanistan and or Iraq are worse places now than they were before 9/11 then you are gravely mistaken. When asked by the press how Bush would respond if the Shite majority in Iraq won the election, he essentially said that if that is the way they vote then so be it....so long as it is done democratically. You can't always allow vigilance to be your only defense...there may not be enough time.--MONGO 08:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there is not enough time, it's because one could not see far enough ahead.

These are straw men you are talking about; not the actual people in the world or these nations, but manifestations of a social imagination. They do not desire a barbarious state. If anything, there are people who desire vindication, whether warranted or not, and there are people who are angry and/or uneducated, etc. These are aspects that every human being shares. There is no alien race on this planet. We are as likely to be the "aggressors" as anyone else, as aggression is not a person, but a human feeling. Things like this must be kept in perspective to understand things and be able to respond to them constructively. As to the idea that we can wave a magic wand and end poverty; that we can plow through a country and transform a non-industrialized latent theocracy into an industralized democractic nation with sheer "boldness of will", that's a good dream, MONGO, but it's not reality, it's rape. It's equivocable to thinking that you can make a woman love you by simply expressing your desire in a reckless abandon of sex. It takes thinking, it takes patience, it takes understanding of what is possible and what is not, it takes acceptance, it takes restraint. You can't transform a nation in 10 years anymore than you can raise a child in 1. It's an illusion, a dangerous illusion. Kevin Baastalk 20:45, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Well, when a person is fairly young as it seems to me that you may be, time seems to be longer, not shorter. I think you fail to see far enough ahead...what kind of power vacuum do you think would have happened in a dictatorial state if Saddam had died while in power? It will take time for these countries to transform, but transform they must. I know that when I was born we had less than half the people on the planet than we do today. By the time I die, we will have more than 3 times maybe 4 times the number of people all sharing spaceship Earth. We don't have the time to wait for them to catch up in a social standards kind of way. If the Taliban wasn't barbarous, then you're deluding yourself. We waited 12 years for Saddam to be straight up with all his facts...it may take another 12 years to tranform Iraq into a better place for their citizens...it only took Japan half that long. I never said we could do it with sheer force, but what to do, sit around and play games? Meanwhile, tortures go on, human rights are snuffed, on and on we go. Why is it liberals are so quick to talk about rights and freedoms and liberties, yet fail to understand that not in all cases can these issues be resolved with diplomacy. Not especially when a dictator is in charge. The terrorist organizations in some cases don't want to be diplomatic, so should we still invite them to sit down and talk? They wish to turn the entire middle east, perhaps more, into a feudal society with archaic notions of human rights and have explicitly said so. If you wish to play Neville Chamberlain that's fine, I'll continue to play Winston Churchill. As far as Iraq and Afganistan go, they are already on the road to a better tomorrow and they didn't have to wait it out for decades more perhaps.--MONGO 10:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your patronization one bit. And I am frustrated with how confused you are on the facts. You really need to get your facts straight before you can discuss this coherently. I won't even start, it would be counter-productive; you'd be adversarial and resist the information. I can only ask you to bear in mind that convictions are worse enemies to truth than are lies, and encourage you to do some research on your own. Kevin Baastalk 22:52, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Kevin, you attempt to lecture with every entry...I feel that this is patronizing as well. I am not the least confused on my facts. The price of freedom...is never cheap. It cannot be attained in our world as it exists today purely by appeasement or diplomacy. Every now and then the ugly truth is that a war results. There was never any doubt who would win the war in Iraq militarily...there has always been doubt that we could win their hearts or souls. The best chance we have for the sacrifice is to establish a stable, democratic government based on universal sufferage, restore their ability to provide a decent way of life and then leave as quickly as possible so they can truly be independent. The hope is that if we can do this that just maybe, Islam will once again flourish as the peaceful intelligent religion it was founded to be, with a tremendous tolerance for non muslims as it once was. It may be a hope or illusion, but one must aspire to create a better world and as ugly as it may be, the price of that better world sometimes leads to war. The best chance Iraq ever has had in hundreds of years is now. Terrorism will wane and have fewer adherents when they can establish a tolerate democratic society. I suggest that you underestimate the ability of third world countries to change and adapt...that is a pessimistic view and I am glad I don't share it. I believe that it is possible and as I said about Japan, history has shown that it can. Utopian perhaps, but better than to remain as they were.--MONGO 13:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can say, at least, and without being arrogant, that I know one thing more than you, and it is perhaps the first and only thing that I know: I know that I know not. Read. That is all I have to say. Learn about Iraq, 9/11, Afghanistan (not to be confused with Iraq), the history of Islam, Muslims, the Bush administration, war, the founding fathers, comparative government, American foreign policy since WW2, psychology, political sociology, etc. Read about what interests you, regardless of me. I always encourage people to read. Kevin Baastalk 18:57, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

I have. I have a great value for books and I do understand. I have to tell you this and I mean so without being too rude. You have no idea how ignorant you are. Maybe in 10 years you'll be able to formulate an intelligent argument without all the philosophical hype. The real world is a different place and you have no idea how close we are to armafuckengeddon.--MONGO 20:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your shameless arrogance and vitriol astounds me. You have to acknowledge the fact that over half of the people in America and the vast majority of people in the world disagree with you. You also should, due to the great responsibility involved in this matter, avoid ad hominem abusive and straw man logical fallacy and acknowledge that that's not because the vast majority of people in the world are unfathomably ignorant and unintelligent. Put your perspective in perspective, and don't criticize what you can't understand. Kevin Baastalk 18:21, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

You don't know what I know...what do you think I do for a living? Most europeans prior to WWII were also so ignorant as they are now to what could happen. So they wouldn't lose credibility, the intelligence community back pedalled on their previous view that WMD's were in Iraq in order to be politically correct. I know this to be a fact....you don't so consider this to be enlightening...not that you'll accept it because it doesn't fit into your narrow definition of reality. Hammer and sickle...now that's vitroil...imagine what it was like for the average person in the Soviet Union in the 1930's. If you come in here to lecture, you'll get it back in spades...you have nothing to teach me...for you THINK you do and that MEANS you don't. Goodbye.--MONGO 23:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Get hold of yourself. Kevin Baastalk 19:24, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Freedom is'nt cheap ... neither is Citizenship

I, along with many more, cannot see the connection you make, Mongo, in using war as the principal means for obtaining freedom.

Leaving aside the point that freedom is rapidly becoming a vauge badly-defined word, you utterly ignore the ways any society can bring about change within itself without resorting to armed combat. Black civil rights were not gained in the 50's and 60's by warfare; neither were women's rights, nor freedom of thought and expression.

Any given word may have different connetations to several different people. And that's assuming they all speck a mutually intelligible language. Not all of us do; look at all the words you and others here have exchanged without really communicating.

"I see little precedent for any neocolonialism aside from what happened in Japan in 1945 when MacArthur essentially wrote their constitution for them."

This quote of you is utterly dishearting; do you really know so little of the history of your own country's actions in the world???

One advantage of coming from a small nation is that we have a lot of experience dealing with bigger powers, all of whom have used us for their own ends. I hear you speck, and well-meaning as your words are, they are almost the same as those used by the British used when justifying imposing themselves on my nation.

As an American, of course you cannot understand this. Not once in your history has your country being taken over and gang-raped by another. I am of course delighted that such a thing has not happened to the USA; however, I do wish people like you would get more perspective than seeing things from a purely American-centred point of view.

America is not the World, and the World is not America.

Therefore it follows that the concerns of non-Americans are not the same concerns as Americans.

Both have the right to their views.

NEITHER have the right to impose their ways on the other.

You state that you have never travelled outside the USA. Please, for the love of God, do, and soon. And not just to Canada or Mexico; Europe is only a few thousands miles from you and has dozens of countrys and cultures within a small geographical area. We're as good a place as any to start. And we all speck English in addition to our own languages.

You NEVER understand your own country completly until you see it through the eyes of other people. I have being lucky enough to do a reasonable amount of travel in my time, and the old cliche is true - travel does broaden the mind. Listening to you reminds me of what I was like in my late teens, before I began to travel and see just how big the world actually is.

And tell us what it is you do instead of alluding to it mysteriously. Its childish. Either that or simply declare the subject off-limits.

I adore your passion. But please, listen to what people are saying; engage with them, and once in a while take and defend points of view that you are utterly opposed to. LEARN.

Fergananim

Lecture, lecture, lecture. You assume I am unworldly due to my not having been outside the western hemisphere. I remmmber when I was a Park Ranger and this guy from The Netherlands and I struck up this conversation and for some reason it became a heated discussion. He ended up telling me that Americans are afraid of the outside world and I told him that all Americans were afraid of was having to finish a war someone else starts...again. My current occupation is definitely off limits and I am sorry...I can't even create or edit articles remotely related to my vocation. So I try to contribute to the Parks, etc. I am convinced of one thing and that has been stated by me in the past...and that is the vast majority of contibutors to Wiki are liberals due to the nature of the medium. I listen to what they have to say quite well, but I disagree and to feel that this makes me wrong, even though I oftentimes am only a divergent opinion, is condescending on your part. I am well aware of what the outside world thinks of the U.S. and mostly it is a combination of respect, fear, distrust, feeling dominated, and in some circl;es, that the U.S. is crude, unestablished, a spinoff of the real deal. Let me put it this way and this explains in some degree why Kerry lost the election....the west, midwest and the south of the U.S. feel that they are looked down upon by New Englanders and especially that "cradle of American intellectualism: New York"...Americans oftentimes feel as though Europeans especially look down upon us....Kerry had the misfortune to be seen as an eliteist by the MOB...the MOB meaning the greater mass of U.S. citizens. BUt now I have to be the ugly American and this will piss you off. If the U.S. didn't exist, the world would quickly descend into an new dark age. Don't assume I am ignorant just because I have a different viewpoint. Equating a potato famine to the current events in Iraq ia absurd. Furthermore, I suppose Europe would have been better off without the Marshall Plan...I remember a silly movie with Peter Sellers in which he was a leader or such from a small somewhat impoverished country somewhere in Europe and they decided that they should invade the U.S. and then lose because their reasoning was that all countries that lose wars to the U.S. get rebuilt and become prosperous...though the movie was a farce, it's premise was based on a concept that is true and that is the U.S. does help to rebuild countries it wages wars with...can you name an example in which this didn't happen? Even Mexico after the war 1845-1846 enjoyed a periood of economic growth after they were defeated (which I freely admit was one of the worst wars the U.S. ever fought and for the worst reasons.)--MONGO 10:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I respect Fergananim, his experience, and the knowledge that he has acquired. I don't see anything objectionable or logicaly disputable in what he says, with the exception of "As an American, of course you cannot understand this." As an American, I understand it. I think what he meant was, as an American, we may not have had the experiences of other countries, which yes, are different, by definition, and therefore do have valuable knowledge and experiences that other countries (such as the U.S.) do not have, just as you and me probably have different academic backgrounds, and thus each of us knows some things that the other person doesn't. That's why we communicate. What would be the point of communicating if that wasn't the case? What he said that it may be more difficult for people who have been in quite different situations to understand, and that it therefore may require a greater degree of effort and imagination to really understand. He is asking you to make that effort. I don't see anything objectionable or offensive about that request. Kevin Baastalk 20:19, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I consider his opinion to matter as well, but also see it as somewhat insulting...to think I will gain, due to his manner in reproachment, invaluable knowledge of my own country by visiting some foreign land is a typical old world looking down on the new world myth. I am also chastised by the rhetoric that I somehow think war is the best means and or only means of solving diplomatic crisises...an all or nothing analysis of my opinions just because I support things like the 2003 liberation of Iraq.--MONGO 20:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I had a response here... I don't know what happened to it, if i didn't save it or what. Frustrating! I might find it eventually. The point of it, basically, was: Personally, I would not be the least bit offended if someone said that to me. Up to the "I am also chastised by..." part, that is. There, I sympathize, as noone should like to nor deserves to be viewed in black and white. Kevin Baastalk 22:09, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Here it is! You censored it with this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMONGO&diff=11284783&oldid=11284637).

Well you come off kind of hawkish to me, as well, FWIW. I understand how you would be offended by that, thou - the fallacy of the excluded middle; to be seen in black and white instead of grey. Regarding the first part of your response, however, I fail to see how gaining knowledge by visiting other countries is neccessarily "old world" -> "new world" or "new world" -> "old world". I would say that it is a rather reasonable and unbiased assertion, like saying that one gains knowledge by reading a book or by talking with someone else. (who, analgously may be thought of as "some foreign land".) I would not be the least bit offended were anyone to suggest that to me. Kevin Baastalk 21:02, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Fergananim Responds

Hello everyone. Sorry to take so long to get back to you all.

First of all, in no way did I mean to insult Mongo or any other person, least of all any Americans, with my views. I suppose that's the problem with doing your level best to be honest; sooner or later you will offend someone.

Neither did I intend it as a lecture, which means that Mongo's response to it got off on the wrong foot from the word go. Because he percieved it as a lecture, he responded in kind. You have no idea how this depresses me, even more so because I have found very much the same response to occour time and time and time again from many Americans. How is it that we can speck the same language yet still not understand each other?

"He ended up telling me that Americans are afraid of the outside world" Please, point out where I said this. Maybe I have overlooked something.

You didn't say it, a person I had a conversation with long ago said it....--MONGO 08:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"You assume I am unworldly due to my not having been outside the western hemisphere."

Anyone who has never being outside their own culture, way of life or country is unworldly in the true sence of the word. Prior to travelling I most certainly was. It was not condensation, it was words of advice. Even yet, all I have seen of the world assures me that there is a great deal that I do not know.

And frankly, yes, I do think you are unworldly. Not on presumption; statements such as "If the U.S. didn't exist, the world would quickly descend into an new dark age." pretty much prove it!

Knowing that you are ignorant is not always a bad place to start on the road of knowledge. And for you information Mongo, it was an American who drew my attention to this in the first place. Maybe there are Americans more worldly than you'd admit ...?

"Americans oftentimes feel as though Europeans especially look down upon us...."

Well that pretty much sums up your response to me in one. Its like this chip on your shoulder makes you hit us first in case we might have any blows to land; and thats what causes all the problems.

Thanks for replying. I won't bother wasteing your time in the future. Beannact De. Is mise,

Fergananim.

Good, because I think you are wasting my time...--MONGO 08:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. You're still more than welcome to visit us, as far as I am concerned, and I hope you have a good time when you do. Cheers. Fergananim

gay ambassadorship

MONGO, I took out the line about Ambassador Guest and Romania because it simply isn't true that Bush was the first President to appoint an openly gay ambassador. James Hormel, the former Dean of the Univ. of Chicago Law School, was appointed ambassador to Luxembourg by Bill Clinton, an appointment which languished in the Senate for nearly a term because the Republican majority refused to approve it. Hormel was finally able to assume his post in 1999.

I will grant you that Bush may well have been the first President to appoint an openly gay ambassador to Romania. But that's about it. Sandover 15:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right...corrected passage so that it details that Guest was the first one officially confirmed by the U.S. Senate...I undertand Clinton was the first, by Jesse Helms played obstructionist...click Micheal Guest stub and please edit or elborate as you see fit. --MONGO 16:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Back to the pet goat in response we resume with the last few discussions

Great! I think we all know what purpose that picture serves. We are all curious about how a leader reacts in a situation like this. For better or worse, thanks to this picture we all know what Bush's reaction was. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You only want it here because it helps your biased case and your opinion, not because it has any other purpose. Your perception of the photo justifies your reasons for wishing to keep it here. It needs to be tied into the text...if that is possible...without creating further point of view.--MONGO 20:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, I know you didn't intend that personally. But I think since you seem to be new to Wikipedia and you seem to me to be the kind of editor who will be very valuable around here (even more valuable than you already are) in the near future, I'm going to be especially careful about how I respond to the above.

On Wikipedia, we have a principle called "Assume good faith", and another one called "No personal attacks". These aren't just words we write, they're words we try to live by.

Your sentiment in the above is a valid one and I agree that it should be expressed.

"I think that your admitted anti-Bush bias may be influencing your perception of the importance of this picture" would be acceptable because I have admitted I don't think much of Bush.

You can point out that you don't find the picture as interesting as I do and that's evidence that my liking for the photograph is an example of confirmation bias. As a matter of fact I am not that unreceptive to the possibility that this may be true.

I'm not telling you off for the way in which you phrased your statement (in time you'll learn for yourself what is and is not acceptable, and in the unlikely event that you don't you'll end up with an arbitration case on your hands). But because I think you have a valid point and could have made it without impugning my good faith I just thought I'd give you my personal ideas about how you could have phrased it far more effectively--far more persuasively, for me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I come across with a big bite and that is because I work in ah, well, I can't say. Anyway, my first sentence was a bit rude. You are right to feel slandered and I express apologies for this. My second sentence could have been phrased better, but it expresses how I feel about some of the folks here. I stated that I think it is an asset for Wikipedia that there are probably a lot of intellectual folks that have gravitated to this and that means we should get first hand, qualified information on a number of subjects. As a rule, these academics or intellectuals per se tend to be liberal politically. In that, I do not think that that they're able to maintain a neutral point of view in some circumstances. I understand that some POV is normal. I do not think that bad reporting is acceptable...and Tony, without insulting your intelligence, which I know is high, I find many of the sources provided are tabloidish (I know that isn't a word) and I argued why van Wormer's opinion is inaccurate and not neutral. Without going into that now, I will do all I can to maintain a high level of civility. However, there has been many attacks on me as well, though not by you. I do plan on contributing articles that I am interested in but as I work almost 60 hour weeks, until that slows down, it is hard for me to gather the time to do so...I am not new to Wikipedia but I haven't used it except for referencing...that is why I am puzzled by the pervasive liberal bias of the George Bush article. I saw it and was shocked as almost all the other articles in here are excellent. I guess I am biased as well, because, (you might feel disgusted), I have no serious problems with the guy. Unfortunately, like most of those that rise to his level, he had a lot of help getting there and there is absolutely no doubt that he could do a better job. Much more to say on the subject and perhaps I'll get back to you on my thoughts about the differences between European and U.S. politics.--MONGO 09:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please don't edit war. It's considered bad form and in certain circumstances it can get you blocked from editing for up to twenty-four hours. Consider joining the Harmonious editing club, which promotes some principles that, if followed, make for a pleasant editing experience. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought I argued that the items I edited were lousy. Without going into it now, my first edit was to revert a vandal, the second one was an edit, and the third one was in response to me being reverted only a few minutes after I edited. I looked over the club...not sure if I am willing to live by all those rules yet. Tony, the Bush article can be accessed in one or two links when his name is queried from any browser...I have serious reservations about the accuracy and neutrality of the article...editing and explaining why is the one of the only ways I can make it better. Thanls for the advice.--MONGO 08:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BUSH

I think you mischaracterize Bush on the Couch when you describe it as a "secondary opinion." As far as I'm aware this fellow Justin Frank arrived at his opinions independently of Van Wormer, who as far as I'm aware is not qualified in his field, clinical psychiatry.

I include this piece primarily because Frank's book constitutes a published opinion delivered by a professional, but also because it was extensively quoted by the President of another country in an attack on Bush. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In response, then I say he is "armchair quarterbacking" in that once again, he did not perform his diagnostics in a typical doctor to patient relationship as one would expect a professional to do. I am further dismayed that he is a former writer for Salon, who I have already said is strongly biased against Bush. Again, Castro would use whatever negative opinion regardless of it's worth he could get if it allowed him the opportunity to cite the reference and speak unfavorably about a President of the U.S.--MONGO 13:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he may well be "armchair quarterbacking." This does not make his publication unencyclopedic any more than it is unencyclopedic to report the 1966 opinion of John Lennon that the Beatles were, at that time, "more popular than Jesus". Yes, he's very biased against Bush. But we don't only report the opinion of people who express a liking for the subject of our biographical pieces. The Wikipedia article on the widely revered Martin Luther King carries a description of one of King's speeches as "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi", and J. Edgar Hoover's description of King as "the most notorious liar in the country."

You're right that Castro would use "whatever negative opinion" he could get. However the Justin Frank book provided him with some pretty powerful ammunition: a book analyzing the psychology of the President, written by a professor of clinical psychiatry. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I think we're going around in circles here, so I'll just jump off now rather than go round one more time with you. As several others have remarked, it looks as if you want to have statements about opinions of Bush to be subject to some special new criterion that we don't apply to other articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong to say the Van Wormer piece is there at my insistence. A day or two ago I stated explicitly that I was not going to restore the Van Wormer piece again if it was removed. It has been removed since then and restored by someone else. I still maintain the intention to do nothing to restore the piece if it is removed. If it stays, it will be because someone else wants it there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

History Revision

"I am deeply opposed to revisionist history in which analysis of persons and events of the past are critiqued based on the moral standards of the modern world."

That's a highly interesting point of view, Mongo. But you gotta understand, all history is CONSTANTLY revised and analysied according to the standards of whatever time it is we live in.

Anyway, before I say more on this I would very much like to hear you expand your thoughts on this. For myself, I am an Irish historian living and working in Ireland. Slan! Fergananim

Historically speaking, I am conservative. As an example...George Washington. I find it unfair if he is judged to be an immoral character due to his ownership of slaves. In the modern world, slavery is illegal everywhere. But in the era of Washington, it was a norm in the American colonies, the subsequent American republic, many places in Europe and so forth. I have seen it written as a condemnation on Washington even though he was progressive for his times, ensuring that upon his death and the death of his widow Martha Washington, his slaves would be freed. Though that seems not so grand a thing in todays world, in 1799 it was a noteworthy issue. Another example....the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki....now, this is a much more recent event that was witnessed and dealt with by many people still alive today. An analysis of the justifications of the atomic attacks made by many then and today would find very polarizing viewpoints on this issue...my concern is that the U.S. would end up being condemned for the decision to use these weapons in the future if we end up ridding the world of nuclear weapons...there must be a full understanding of the reasons of why the bombs were dropped and put in the perspectives of the events and politics of the day, not based on current dogma which finds the issue to be more and more of one opposed to their use at that time. Understanding that my attitude is the use of those weapons actually saved lives for the U.S. and Japan...all indications are that this is true. I do not think Bill Clinton should have apologized for the use of those weapons, but understand why he did so. Naturally, one must provide a historically accurate picture of the person or event in history to be scholarly and I agree with this. My problem, and the problem some have is when history is essentially rewritten based on moralities of the present age, and fail to take into account that these events of the past were acceptable in the ages they occurred.--MONGO 11:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For my own part I don't think its fair to call Washington immoral simply because he owned slaves, as he was very uneasy about the whole institution, and his later actions on that issue were laudable.

As regaurds Hiroshima et al: War is industrialised murder, and every death that occours in a war is both a tragedy and a crime. The idea that you have to take life to save it is like fucking for virginity.

The USA won't rid the world of nukes anytime soon.

Murder has never being accectable in any age. Why else the concept of wergild, eraic, and punishment for it?

Thanks for getting back to me. Love to hear more from ye. Fergananim

Well, interesting point about Hiroshima...but war is fought to be won...I doubt many Americans (or British for that matter) could have cared about how many Japanese died, and could have cared less about how they would die, so long as the allies won. It doesn't make it right...but war must be brought to a conclusion and the Japanese weren't going to surrender without the motivation...the possiblity of total elimination. Hence my argument that the use of the bombs was done based on the attitudes of the day and has only relatively recently been moralistically challenged.--MONGO 07:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right in that wars must be brought to a conclusion, but better for them not to be fought in the first place. We can but try.

"the Japanese weren't going to surrender without the motivation." Maybe. Who knows? Here's a few links with with you can make up your own mind.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html http://www.doug-long.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki http://www.lclark.edu/~history/HIROSHIMA/ If we choose to fight a war and justify it by expressing our fight in moral statments, is it not incumbunt upon us to act morally at all times?

Otherwise, what difference is there between 'us' and 'them'? Fergananim

If facts serve me, the need for the U.S. to fight a war with Japan in the 1940's wasn't a choice but a necessity. I do not think the use of the atomic weapons on Japan was an act that was immoral in any way. I appreciate the links, but my understanding of the use of the atomic bombs is derived from an education on the events, not from any blind opinion. There is no good evidence with which the allies had in 1945 that would outweigh the evidence that pointed, in all directions, to an overwhelmingly costly amphibious invasion resulting in the loss of up to 250,000 allied troops and perhaps millions of Japanese. Some have suggested that the use of the weapons was also a show of strength for the Russians to see...and some argue that there was bigotry against the Japanese which was so pervasive that no one really cared one way or the other how we defeated them, so long as we won. Those issues are noteworthy, but fail to surmise the basic facts of the issue and they were primarily around Truman's desire to end the war as quickly as possible and minimize losses of allied troops. Regardless of the perhaps hundreds of analysis's and issues the allies dealt with regarding how to end the war with Japan, the main goal had always been to do so quickly and at the least cost to the allies.--MONGO 13:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the use of the atomic bomb was a decision made by a small group of people, not the general populace. Thus, the de facto moral consensus argument is logically invalid. Also, I recall learning somewhere that there was some disagreement about that in some of the higher offices of government that knew about it, and I know for certain that Albert Einstein, who made the A-bomb possible, was rather discouraged by it's use in Hiroshima. Kevin Baastalk 15:08, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

I would hope Einstein would be. Who wouldn't be discouraged by it's use...but it was used and that is that. Interestingly, the Gallup poll on the "righteousness" of the use of the bomb taken in 1945 was 89% in favor while at some point in the 90's it fell to a low of less than half...strange how peacetime makes everyone soften up about their need for retribution. Regardless, had I been President and Japan failed to surrender after the Tokyo fire bombing, I would have definitely used atomic weapons in an effort to end the war.--MONGO 10:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Gallup poll is an interesting statistic. In my opinion, it's relevant and a NPOV way of addressing the elusive "morality" question of the bomb, depending on how the poll question(s) was (were) worded, ofcourse.

Given what I know about the situation, which I feel is relatively limited, I'm inclined to say at least that I would have seriously considered that option. I vaguely remember hearing something to the affect that Japan was just about to surrender, and certainly the cost would have been less, economically, in human lives, and ecologically, were that the case and we deliberated just a little longer. That would be my main reservation; that just as the use of the atomic bomb may have saved a lot military, economically, etc., so could, quite possibly, a moment of deliberation have saved even more. It's difficult to know either way - the element of chance in war; the element of the unknown. Kevin Baastalk 21:57, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

You mentioned a conspiracy theory in one of your edit summaries. What is this conspiracy theory you mention? Kevin Baastalk 05:38, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

We already discussed this before didn't we? It is tired. I know you put a lot of effort into the Ohio voting irregularitites article, and find it mostly to be a lost cause. I am glad the article is there, but do not think that it warrants discussion or link from the first or second (or third) paprgraph of the GWB article because it simply fails to be authoritative. Let's discuss van Wormers and Franks silly innuendo instead....--MONGO 09:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Kevin Baastalk 07:27, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Kevin, the conspiracy theory is mostly yours, I am sorry to say. I read your article...I don't buy it. I wish it was true...I think Bush is a putz...but I don't think the results from the OHIO irregularities are even one tenth strong enough to have given the election to Kerry. Does every democrat think the world would change that much if Kerry was elected? Doubtful.--MONGO 07:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't have an article. Not on wikipedia. You can't "have" articles on wikipedia. I have one on wikinfo, thou, "morphogenic network", it's really rough and slopply, but you can check it out if you like. Anyways, I'm still not aware of any conspiracy theory surrounding any thing you're talking about. Could you describe this conspiracy theory to me? Who are the co-conspirators? What did they conspire about? I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but since you're accusing me of having one, I'd kinda like to know what you're talking about. Kevin Baastalk 09:51, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Here's one..I see you did most of the "research"Moss v. Bush--MONGO 13:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did a lot of research (not in quotes) for that article, yes. Everything in that article actually happened. Nothing in the article alleges, discusses, implies, or alludes to, a conspiracy, in any way, shape, or form. The article states, in NPOV fact, what happened in the empirical world, regarding the civil case in Ohio Supreme Court, "Moss v. Bush". Do you have a problem with that? (You mention it in what seems to me like a derogatory tone.) Add that to the list of unanswered questions. I'm still more interesting in the first one, though, which remains to be answered. Kevin Baastalk 14:48, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

And I have applauded you for those efforts in the past...but I question your modus operandi in such an endeavour and consider SOME of the article to be "fishing" for facts and not balanced....sorry Kevin, you seem greatly motivated and I applaud that but I do not agree with all you have to say or the method behind SOME of your madness. I do not mean to be derogatory. Am I the great quest...ie: if I can be converted to your train of thought then anyone can?--MONGO 10:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heh... I like that, it's a little more light-hearted. I think what I've been trying to get across here, and I think we're converging to this, is that there should be no "quest", and therefore, any notions of either a) being on a quest, or b) someone else being on a quest, should be done away with as much as possible. Only when all persuasion and suspicion (that is, forces that artifically embellish or diminish credibility) are put aside, can the underlying facts be seen through a flat (undistorted) lens.

I'm sure we all are a little bit bias, without intending to be so or being aware of it, but fortunately we have all have different knowledge and experience, and can combine this together to get a clearer and more complete picture. If you have factual or NPOV disputes with the article, then please, for the sake of the article's quality, bring them up on the article's talk page. Kevin Baastalk 21:42, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

protect

Didn't mean to single you or anyone out and I don't blame you for your conversations...I just viewed it as coalition building and don't like it...I attempted to protect your conversation and have now removed it in it's entirety(sp). Sorry about that.--MONGO 08:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I recognise and share your legitimate concern. In certain circumstances a group of editors can try to keep a page in a state that they prefer, opposing any single newcomer who tries to change it. Something similar to that happened to me the other day--my initial attempts to edit the introduction of an entry were repelled because, it was claimed, the current intro was the result of months of consensus work.

My response was to chuckle a bit and show the intro, as it then was, to some colleagues. One or two of them went to the article and helped me to edit it to include some of the significant facts that had previously been omitted or not given much prominence. There was, in the end, little significant opposition, once we'd shown that this was not just a single person objecting to the current wording. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see...but that was my point in a way... I respect your efforts to make things "better" but object to this methodology from the standpoint that it may be going on (and surely is) to block or gang attack certain articles. Anyhoo...enough said.--MONGO 13:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is not falsifiable. Kevin Baastalk 13:09, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I have banned TDC for a week as it was the second violation in rapid succession and I have invited other admin's views on Christiaan to have him banned for longer too. While this is his first violation of which I am aware, he has been sailing very close to the wind for a long time, far too close for my taste. Both should mend their ways or I will ask for a ArbComm decision on both their behaviour. But why are you accsuing me of "whining" ? Or is this a remark directed at Christiaan? If so it should not be on my talk page. Refdoc 11:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No I wasn't asking you to not whine...sorry about that...I'll remove it...--MONGO 11:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR template

Please don't mess with the template. It's the way it is after a lot of tinkering from the admins who deal with this page. Thanks. Noel (talk) 13:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Twas an accident...have a legitimate complaint...sorry.--MONGO 14:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi MONGO. As a fellow Wikipedian, I strongly suggest you try to avoid making personal attacks against other editors, such as this attack on Kevin baas, where you call him a liar. If this keeps up, someone might be tempted to file a request for comment. Since I'm sure you wouldn't want that to happen, let's try to stay cool, OK? You and I are both editing a very controversial article where it's easy for content disputes to get personal. But if we assume good faith (for example, by not assuming other editors are liars), we can get closer to an acceptable resolution for the issues surrounding this article. /sɪzlæk˺/ 02:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2003 Invasion of Iraq

Your recent edition to 2003 Invasion of Iraq make it appear like you are constantly trying to insert the same part over and over again, without discussion, only hidding behind the lettre of the "3RR" rule. This makes you appear like one of the people who stall talk pages with insignificant rants, and keep messing with the article itself only to justify a "POV" tag in order to globally discredit it. Since these sort of acts are not acceptable, I would like to suggest that you change your course of action, so that you could not be assimilated with the tenants of the bad-faith tactic. Specifically, if you have factual reasons to contest the phrasing of the sentance, please state them on the talk page, in the alternative, please quit reverting the consensual part over and over again. Thank you. Rama 11:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Omphalocentric

At the risk of appearing to be Viajero's sock, I'll reply to your question on the meaning of this word. It's derived from omphalos, a Greek word for the navel. The English word omphalocentric denotes navel-gazing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

omphalocentric

Omphalos is the greek word for bellybutton. For the ancient Greeks, Delphi was considered the omphalos, the center of the world. -- Viajero 12:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to both you and Sidaway...hopefully I am not a bellybutton gazing American...not sure what all that means but it could be bad...for me that is...thanks again.--MONGO 12:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda → Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 17:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...I'll look into it and will vote after I have a chance to see whats what.--MONGO 08:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conquest

Well I understand your viewpoint--we had the same problem on George W. Bush where you thought that just describing significant allegations was tantamount to giving them credence. Here you seem to think that just saying that the invasion is sometimes referred to by opponents as the "Conquest of Iraq" is tantamount to us describing it as a conquest. If I agreed with you on that, of course I'd have to remove the equally POV term "Liberation of Iraq". As it happens I don't.

For me that fact that the term "Conquest of Iraq" (combined with america to filter out the sixteenth century conquest, etc) has around thirty times more google hits than "Third Gulf War" suggests that it should be included, although personally I would not use the term any more than I'd use the term "Liberation of Iraq" (though I note that many of the 100,000 or so references to this term are somewhat sarcastic in tone).

I'm not wedded to the idea of including all these names, however. We could get rid of all synonyms if you like, leaving only the descriptive Invasion of Iraq. I'd go along with that because I don't think the names are of much value. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your recent extreme personal attacks

Hi, just thought I'd make contact with you and ask why you're being so extreme at present. I would like to discuss the article George W. Bush with you rather than suffer your claims, which are false, that I'm pushing a point of view. I don't feel that your personal attacks, which incidentally are far, far beyond anything that is countenanced by Wikipedia policy, can help in making the article better.

Has something happened since I was last involved with that article? I'm very busy on other articles a lot of the time so it was a big surprise to see this abrupt change in your behavior on returning to it. Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the fact that you disagree with me. I'm talking about your extreme personal attacks, statements not about our disagreemts but personal statements about me and others that go well beyond what is acceptable on Wikipedia. For instance:

"The only thing you wish to do here is utilize this medium to promote your obvious left wing bias...I have yet to see you add anything of substantial encyclopedic merit to this article yet" "what purpose does your presence here serve if all you wish to do is perpetuate an anitBush ramble in this article in light of the fact that you are hostile to the right?" "Your support of this kind of sensationalism isn't proof to me that you wish to be encyclopedic, but rather to find and incorporate less than worthwhile trivia that distorts the subject matter to fit your politics" And I haven't even quoted a single word directed to me. In the couple of months or so since I lasted edited that article regularly, you seem to have turned into one of the most flamish, disruptive editors on Wikipedia. Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Why it isn't a good idea to try to game the 3RR

You lost count.

Times in UTC:

• 02:09, 17 May 2005 [[1]] "rv see talk"
• 00:01, 18 May 2005 [[2]] (no edit summary)
• 00:21, 18 May 2005 [[3]] "revert....number 2"
• 02:02, 18 May 2005 [[4]] "3rd revert...see everyone in 24 hours and 1 minute even though my first revert was due to vandalism"

I don't block for 3RR, so don't worry. But don't play games like this. You will lose. Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't mistake what I'm saying here for a threat. And no, none of those reverts were purely to remove vandalism. All were reverts of good faith edits.

I'm warning you not to engage in gaming like this. Don't act as if you have a right to three reverts a day. You don't. Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You write "the items I had restored against my revert had been in discussion ad nauseum..". That doesn't make you immune from the 3RR. It's precisely during an edit war that it tends to be applied.

You write "Go ahead and block me". I already told you: I don't block for 3RR. Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush and ad hominem attacks

MONGO, although in theory I am sympathetic to your viewpoint, and agree that there is much in this article that is poorly substantiated personal attack, I have to reiterate that you are not helping by injecting the personal attacks against the left-of-center editors. It allows your opponents to dismiss any validity your arguments may have and instead focus on your behavior. I also find it frustrating when sophisticated arguments are made to justify libelous garbage, but flaming out on your opponents is never going to fix the article, and I think you'd help your cause more by trying this experiment: make edits and add talk WITHOUT any reference to the motivation or characteristics of the other editors, and try to avoid "POV pushing" as an accusation; it's an ad hominem attack. Instead, explain WHY the details introduced are not NPOV, etc. I'm glad there are other wikipedians who are trying to mediate the leftist drift of most of the articles about conservative figures (from Bush to Gingrich and all in between), but in my opinion, you would be better at it if you tried to avoid the interpersonal conflict. Just my two cents. Regards, Kaisershatner 14:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for your reply at my talk page. Believe me, I'm sympathetic, and you're probably right about the behind the scenes protection of pages here. Others have tried to convince me that it's pointless even to struggle against the leftward drift (see User:Anonip) and maybe they're right. But part of why the subtle leftward drift is effective is that the proponents of it use wiki policy as a weapon to enforce their POV, and when you or anyone else hit the ceiling in frustration that's just used against you. I'm about at the point where I may walk away for awhile, or permanently, so your situation is familiar to me. Anyway, thanks for fighting the good fight. Kaisershatner 13:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hope I took care of the problem: Junk_science#External_links. Nobs 21:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please don't refer to good faith edits as vandalism. Please don't order people to participate in discussion. Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In retrospect I wouldn't have worded the edit summary like that; it could be read as hostile in tone. Now your wording on my user talk page is almost unbelievably combative and contains several personal slurs and false accusations. Please stop doing this, it's getting far, far beyond what is considered remotely civil on Wikipedia. I ask you to reconsider your recent behavior. Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation

I believe you've violated this rule on the George W. Bush article. I've posted the evidence at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:MONGO. JamesMLane 11:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It does seem that you violated 3RR, and you have therefore been blocked from editing for twenty-four hours. If you dispute this decision, please e-mail me or another admin. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Text removal

Please do not simply remove large chunks of text from George W. Bush. Thank you. Meeler (talk) 18:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

You write I also respect your not using 3RR as a tool to suppress but think that in cases of blatent vandalism, you should reconsider.

Oh do be assured that I have no qualms about blocking vandals. They get a few warnings and then I block them if they continue. That's got nothing to do with WP:3RR.

And having said what I did, you may be surprised to learn that I did recently have to block someone for 3RR. Mel Etitis, an administrator, did seven reverts in twenty-four hours and for some reason no other admin would block him, so I did it. Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I may have watched your edits more closely than his. But I don't block for 3RR. If I warn someone it's because I don't want them to be blocked. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bush RfC

Thanks for the update. I've been working on the supporting statement for the full version (the one that started out as Version 3), but I then had to spend a lot of time repairing the article after a glitch. (I think one editor accidentally edited an old version. We had Negroponte still being just a nominee, and several other recent edits that had been lost.) Before posting the RfC, I'll post on the GWB talk page that the RfC is about to go out, so everyone else can look at it and criticize what you and I wrote. JamesMLane 05:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MONGO"

need your help on two RFCs

Please visit these pages and post a comment in support with an example of how this is true. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Gamaliel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon 24.147.97.230 17:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Yes, I posted the RfC more than twenty-four hours ago. I assume that's why we're seeing comments from people who haven't previously been involved in editing the page. JamesMLane 21:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Godwin's law

You might want to check out Talk:Godwin's law, where Mike Godwin himself has stopped by to discuss the Wikipedia article. JamesMLane 11:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FYI

I've brought your actions on the George W. Bush article to the attention of an admin for clarification. I will, or they will notify you of the result. -bro 172.149.84.231 07:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, regarding not being able to talk to me, I have left numerous messages on the talk page, you can leave anything you wish for me to read there. -bro 172.149.84.231 07:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see the George W. Bush talk page. -bro 172.149.84.231 08:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sock puppet vandal garbage removed

Now, that seems rather rude. I'm beginning to doubt the ability to grant good faith to you with things like this. It's your user page, so do as you like, but you may want to consider how it effects -your- reputation. -bro 172.149.84.231 12:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, there has been much discussion in regards to these issues, you have some strong sentiments so I encourage you to participate with others that have worked hard to create a neutral article with a minimal of redundancy. MONGO

Considering the blind reverts, soley on the basis of 'You don't have an account', and then the personal attacks here, I have a rather hard time believing you. You might also want to post the diff's to your 3rr post, as that is whats asked for. -bro 172.149.84.231 12:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not tolerate anyone using a sockpuppet account and am a strict adherent to Wikipedia:Accountability. The evidence of sockpuppet account is here[[5]].--MONGO 08:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

1. I'm afraid that I don't know what "summarily the same" means.

And you teach at Oxford???

I know what "summarily dismissed" or "summarily exectued" mean. My guess is that you mant that they were the saem in basic intent or content — but that's not enough for a 3RR violation. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are the same in content to a dgree...I see that they aren't as far as the 3RR rule applies.

2. I made no personal attacks, and said nothing about your motivations.

Then what do you call this[[6]]

Neither a personal attack nor a comment about your motivation. I can see that a misunderstanding of personal attackmight have led you atray with regard to the former claim, but the latter leaves me completely at a loss. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your statement that I utilize my account primarily for disruption is a personal attack..perhaps you didn't blatently curse me, but how else can a person read your comment unless, by your definition, it isn't a personal attack but an opinion you have. By my interpretation of the comment, you both make a claim as to my purpose and as to my motivations.

3. I'm not sure how a "predisposed bias" differs from an ordinary bias, but I suffer from neither; I looked at the evidence.

After the first two comments, it would be hard for me to believe that you know what evidence is.

It's what I found in your contributions history, and what I found in the edit history of the article in question. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4. Incidentally, you may, of course, delete material from your Talk page, though it's generally considered as an indication that you have something to hide. The material that you've been deleting is not, however, vandalism — not on any definition of that term, and certainly not on Wikipedia's. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My deletion of this nonsense is due to the opinion that this person is a vandal who also vandalized my user page...I have nothing to "hide" as it is all right there in the history, isn't it.

So whatever someone who has (putatively) vandalised in one place does is ipso facto vandalism, regardless of content? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I assume this is in reference to me, if you would be so kind, what exactly was this 'vandalism'? Thanks. -bro 172.147.73.11 22:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tracked your IP...you are one and the same and we both know what I am talking about. New IP already I see...how convienent.

As I've already mentioned, I am on dialup. As I have also mentioned regarding the vandalism you attributed to me on the 3RR page, we do indeed share the same ISP, along with millions of others. I certainly object to what you labeled vandalism in my posts here on your userpage, but as I said then, thats your perogative. You only have your own reputation to tarnish in throwing around accusations and insults. -bro 172.147.73.11

00:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If anyone's reputation is at stake, it is yours for your continued refusal to create a user page...what's with this adolescent "bro" crap? the wording you cite is in the linked text so it's not like your contribution is any great discovery.

As mentioned on the talk page, the whole of the paragraph is listed in the linked text, so your reasoning is deeply flawed. Putting aside the personal attack in the 'adolescent' crack, bro is the moniker I use to allow people to recognize me in other ways than the IP address. I suppose MONGO is somehow more professional? -bro 172.147.73.11 00:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's an actual nickname given to me...being 6'8" and about 265 pounds, friends thought I reminded them of the character played by actor Alex Karras in the movie Blazing Saddles...it's a Montana thing, kid.

Image:Elliott Knob.jpg

Hi. You uploaded Image:Elliott Knob.jpg but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Image copyright tags for more info. If the image was uploaded in error or cannot be licensed for use on Wikipedia, please add it to images for deletion. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 16:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't implying the image was a copyright violation but I think you've realized that with your comments on my talk page. What I wrote above is a standard blurb I place on user talk pages concerning images that do not have source/copyright info. I copy/paste it from a local file to save time. Thanks for your quick response in identifying this photo as your own. I might mention that if you are planning to upload any more photos, you might want to consider putting them onto Commons (instead of uploading them onto the English wiki) so that the photos can be readily used by the other language wikis. There's nothing special you need to do to reference the images on Commons. Use the same image markup as if the image was on this Wiki and the server will automatically look on Commons if it can't find it on here. RedWolf June 28, 2005 04:28 (UTC)

Taken from talk: Fahrenheit_9/11/Not_a_documentary"

Now it's a poll? I always thought it was a request for comments. Regardless, Moore's movie is a propaganda documentary at the very least..his removal from considerations for any potential Oscars to ensure it would be seen on video by voters prior to the 2004 elections is all the proof we need.--MONGO 15:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it were to be assumed that Moore's movie isn't propaganda, this would not change his desire to show it prior to the 2004 elections. So you're saying if it wasn't propaganda, he wouldn't have shown it? --kizzle 00:37, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Moore's movie Bowling for Columbine did well in awards and F911 did well at Cannes...he made the arrangements to ensure the movie would get on video before the elctions and by doing so he knew it would be eliminated from any Oscar considerations...but did it anyway. I can't say that he wouldn't have shown it...but I can say that it seems a little "timely"...although, due to the potentialities of bigger revenues some could also claim that his motivations were apolitical and instead based on money...somehow, I would not be inclined to believe this to be the case.--MONGO 07:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I agree he tried to release it on video to sway potential voters, he even admitted as much on his web-site. I just don't see how this a priori renders F9/11 propaganda? --kizzle 21:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps caling it propaganda isn't best...regardless, his efforts didn't work...the more the Democrats allow the hollywood bunch to do their talking for them, the more mainstream/centrist Americans become alienated and the harder it will be for the Democrats to regain the White House.--MONGO 21:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm real sick of that line, heard it about a billion times. You must watch Fox News a lot. Kerry didn't lose because of F9/11, nor did it have a negative effect on his poll numbers, unless you want to cite a poll to prove me wrong. It actually had the opposite, and helped the base along with undecideds. Just because Kerry lost, doesn't mean you can look at everything he did and say, see that's why he lost. If Bush arbitrarily had 120,000 less votes in Ohio, you could cite about a billion reasons why he lost overall.

The best way Democrats can regain the White House is to somehow educate the mainstream/centrist/republicans is that these people represent a fringe extremist section of the Republican party, and do not, in fact, speak for the majority of people except for hard-core chickenhawks who believe that the best Midde-Eastern policy is to get our hands in their political system as much as possible to avoid a Pan-Arabic movement that spurns World War III. 95% of Americans (upper middle-class, middle-class, and the poor), even those in the heartland, care about is having a good job, caring for their family, and being able to express their ideas in a free society. Somehow, these people must be taught that the Republican party as run today only represents the 5% that cares about how their stock is doing, and how they can increase the shareholder price of their corporation by firing US workers and hiring labor for a quarter of the price in India. That is how the Democrats will win, not whether or not some movie comes out. Your attribution of significance to Michael Moore is over-emphasized, it is the Democratic party which needs to change, not Hollywood, who, in making movies, has a right to express their beliefs just like any other American, or is there an inverse relationship between the amount of fame you have and your right to freedom of speech? Extremism is bad in either direction, be it Michael Moore or George W. Bush (meaning Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz), once people know these extremists for who they are and vote their conscience rather than their personal ability to make money off the candidate or that you could see yourself "buying a beer" with him, we can keep them out of the White House altogether and not be in the deep shit we are in, with the rest of the world who hates us, a country with a president's approval ratings the worst since the last president to forcefully resign in shame from the office, and a war with no end in sight, no exit strategy, and less troops and recruits by the day. --kizzle 22:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Continued:

• Kizzle, corporations always look for the cheapest labor...this has happened throughout history...firing American workers is bad, but the American consumer wants products delivered to them at a certain rate and to remain competitive, corporations always look at ways to cut costs and one way to do this is through outsourcing their labor. I don't like this either, but to assume that corporations are solely hell bent on screwing over the American worker is incorrect..that doesn't mean that I have any admiration for the CEO's or the other fat cats in charge either.
  • True, but extrapolate the situation into the future, all things being equal and considering current trends stay the way they are, do you see this as a good thing or bad? Of COURSE corporations are not bent on screwing over the American worker, but they do not have any responsibility to them either. Mainly, assuming things stay the way they are and more corporations outsource labor to foreign countries, what do you see the impact is on American life?--kizzle 23:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It has a lot to do with globalization...I don't agree with it, but it is what the market will bear...in time perhaps their will be more parity for the rest of the world to the standards economically with the U.S., but the sweatshops may provide a higher standard of living than those people may enjoy currently, but since they live within their means, they become hostages to the income and without proper labor laws in place in those countries, they are almost universally takne advantage of...long term this will breed increased animositites towards the U.S. Long term for the American worker, I'm not sure what the outlook is. My experience with the private sector is that it is a dog eat dog world and few of them have any feelings of obligations to their staffs.

What is the impact on *American life* given continuously increasing outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries? Is this not ok but to hunt for a possible solution is too hard? --kizzle 00:45, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the corporate world cares. You can always be replaced...this happens all the time. Eventually the only things we will end up exporting is technology and military arms cause we aren't do much manufacturing here otherwise. The world becomes more interdependent everyday and the only good thing is that due to this need for one another, perhaps it will reduce the chances of war...as far as the American worker, well, all he/she can do is continue to get retrained and to be prepared to commit to the understanding that they are expendable...it stinks, but that's probably not going to change.

K, that's what I thought your answer would be, that it sucks, its only going to get worse, but its probably not going to change. --kizzle 01:33, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Moore has every right to produce whatever he wants and I would never impede on that. I was merely saying without attributing Kerry's loss to Bush just because of Moore's movie, that regardless of what Moore's likly hopes were from ensuring the movie made it to video prior to the election, Moore's efforts did not contribute enough to ensure a democratic victory.
  • Fair enough, but I think that was Kerry's incompetence more than the Democratic party. --kizzle 23:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Kerry was viewed and portrayed as a northeastern liberal and this, regardless of it's factuality, probably cost him the election. I personally had no beef with the guy.

• Unfornately, I would be much more likly to have a beer with Cheney than I would Michael Moore...in fact I wouldn't even have a beer with Sean Penn, Tim Robbins or any of the other elistist holly types...the reason...they only use their position as a platform to spew their opinion...I don't like it when people of fame think that because they have access to the media they can use that as their political pulpit...this does not mean that I disagree with them...I just simply don't care what their opinion is...not do I care about what they do on Saturday mornings or who they slept with or anything else about their private lives...I wish they would just recognize that they simply have occupations that put them in the limelight, but overall, I don't respect their opinions or find their talents in their respective fields to be any more specialized than a finish carpenter....the carpenter may have great expertise, but without access to the media, their opinion is never heard...what great gift of insight does the hollywood movie star have? Zero...they live in a fantasy world.
  • Of course, and being one of the biggest South Park fans in the world, you are in agreement with its creator in Team America's (one of my favorite movies) take on things. I'm somewhere in-between... these people have opinions too and in my mind are welcome to share it. It's when they believe that their opinion matters *because* they are a celebrity and not of the merit of the argument they are making, that I have a problem, which is something to the effect of what Trey said. Who cares if their occupation put them in the limelight, that's why Pat Buchanan, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and most all political pundits are there. What extremely special qualifications make them so much more authoratative or give them a license to dictate to us how they feel about current events than other celebrities? I'd take a finish carpenter to tell me the news over Hannity anyday. --kizzle 23:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see Team America but know that it's attempts were soley comedic and rather insulting to some. I think these guys must be conservatives, but I imagine that they are more interested simply in lampooning the big mouths that seem to use their positions of limelight for political fingerpointing. I also understand that in the movie Team America, the puppets also made American attempts to fight terrorism look rather idiotic with the puppets destroying Paris and running roughshod all over the middle east. Everyone has a right to say whatever they want, so long as they understand that this is a well educated society that has been taught for 200 plus years to question their imput. I guess those you mention above have zero special abilities as well, but it is what they do...they are not actors, they are political commentators...it is their occupation.

C'mon Mongo, "it is their occupation"? That's the best justification you're going to give for why we get to hear hours of drivel every day from Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.? Because that's what they do? You didn't even attempt to justify their qualifications! :) Trey Parker and Matt Stone are definetely centrists who rip on both sides of the spectrum, and they take issue with Hollywood giving their opinions like you do. The brilliance in Parker's humor is disguising a well-crafted blade of social commentary with an extreme density of curses and fart jokes... doesn't sound like you buy into it, but maybe you should give it a try, specifically the South Park movie, I promise you won't be disappointed. Anyways, yes there are some Hollywood elites who believe that the world should hear them because of the celebrity status instead of their actual viewpoint, those people are definetely idiots. But we shouldn't simply ignore all of them either. It's a bit ironic in my mind that one of the most revered presidents (by Republicans) in history, Ronald Reagan, came from Hollywood. And as for a well-educated society that questions what information their given, you must be talking about another country. Cause it sure as hell isn't where I grew up. --kizzle 00:45, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the political commentators are correct, it's just this is their occupation...so not only do we have them on T.V. but also on the radio, sprinkled throughout the newspapers...etc. Perhaps I also overstated the abilty for Americans to question..I should have said that we have the right to question.

Right, but I'm questioning the personal qualifications in your eyes the "pundits" possess which gives them a license (in your mind) to preach their personal viewpoints on current events that all famous people (in your mind) do not possess. --kizzle 01:33, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, I don't know if the political commentators have any more right than anyone else...all I am saying is, and I'm not agreeing with them, that this is what they do for an occupation...actors, act for an occupation...I have no qualms about them voicing their opinion...I would just prefer if they stuck to what they do best...which is act...I really enjoy movies, but honestly, regardless if they support the NRA such as Heston and Selleck do or are very vocally opposed to the Iraq war as is Penn and Redford, I just prefer them to understand that we love them for their talent to entertain us, not for their ability to use their positions as pulpits to preach from. I'm not sure if that answers your question or not...but I let me gather my thoughts (I'll need 7-10 minutes and a book about a pet goat!) and I'll get back to you.:)--MONGO 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)

I'll be waiting :). On a side note, my personal opinion about the whole pet goat episode in f9/11 is that I totally understand Bush sitting there dumbstruck by the news. We were all dumbstruck, and while I might not think it was the best course of action, I don't blame him for it. What I do blame, is his ex post facto justification that "he was trying to calm the children" which is complete bullshit. The fact that he can't admit he just froze is what pisses me off about that whole episode. --kizzle June 28, 2005 16:21 (UTC)

I think he simply was in shock. And I think he ended up looking like a moron....maybe he is, who knows. I think you have me...as far as justifing why the actors have less right to continuously belch their political opinions than the Hannity, Limbaugh, Franken (who was an actorsort of) and the rest of the paid commentators. Again, I think the only thing I can say is that, and this is the same thing so I'll have to end on this note, is that the paid commentators do that for a living...and that probably, makes them less likely to be qualified since their motivations are based more on financial gain, than what their true opinions may be...afterall, would Limbaugh be as successful if he was sometimes radical? Whereby and actor is merely stating an opinion...and the notority of such opinion is probably not always beneficial to their career...but overall, I wish they would just stick to acting, but naturally, they ahve as much right as anyone to voice their opinions.--MONGO 28 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)

Admin

MONGO: If you have a moment I hope you would seriously consider this nomination Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Feco. Thanks.Nobs01 30 June 2005 17:12 (UTC)

I reserach his/her contributions and consider it, thanks for believing that my opinion matters, Nobs!--MONGO 30 June 2005 19:46 (UTC)