I am not involved in a personality cult — of my own or anybody else’s

And I’m not being “victimized by fecal metaphors” — actually, you are.

Three strikes and you’re out.

My, you are keeping close tabs on me. Stalking me makes feel almost like a celebrity.

So that’s two pieces of the puzzle that is Semanticleo — you like talking about excrement, and you are a stalker:

From The Toll of Stalking: The Relationship Between Features of Stalking
and Psychopathology of Victims.

E Blaauw
FW Winkel
Department of Clinical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

E Arensman
Department of Clinical & Health Psychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands

“The stalker personality type can present as highly intelligent and very charming…
In any event, it is imperative that you realize that you are not dealing with a rational person and so any attempt to disengage from relationship with rational conversation will not work. This person needs help and this is not your responsibility.”

What would Blaauw and Winkel say about your being somewhat smitten by the fantasy that someone may be interested in attaching themselves to the Frank__D personality cult.

Or about your being victimized by fecal metaphors and being ‘nauseated’ by semen.

I think I will leave you alone. I don’t want it on my conscience that I may have contributed to your breakdown.

Since you have the inside dope on Miers and Alito, care to reveal what Rove’s future is?

Could this be it?

From Wikipedia:

President Ronald Reagan s administration sold arms to Iran, an avowed enemy. At the time, Americans were being held hostage by Islamic terrorists in Lebanon, and it was hoped that Iran would influence the terrorists to release the hostages; at the same time, Iran, which was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War, could find few nations willing to supply it with weapons. The U.S. diverted proceeds from the sale to the Contras, anti-Communist guerrillas engaged in an insurgency against the socialist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

As far as I am (was?) concerned, it was win – win, and it didn t bother me a bit.

Yours from Oct 25.

Sheesh, now you’re disagreeing with yourself!

I have not accepted the idea that “the end justifies the means” in all cases. So, at what point does your ridiculous attempt at debate fall apart?

Does it ever end with you?

That’s why I am so curious as to what motivates you. This endless game of ‘gotcha’ you play with me is as pointless, as it is witless.

I worry about others who have more flexible principles than yourself who;

“that kind of thinking can have very serious consequences, especially if the party in power decides that the party that s out is unpatriotic.”

The point I was trying to make is that that kind of thinking can have very serious consequences, especially if the party in power decides that the party that’s out is unpatriotic.

I’m waiting too

However, rather than argue those points, I will concede them, and say that I trust the President now, the same as I trusted the President that I despised from 1991 – 2001. I trust that, as mistaken as they might be — in my eyes — they have the nation’s interests at heart.

So I never, for a moment, thought Clinton supporters were unpatriotic. I never bought into the rhetoric that dissent is a prerequisite for good citizenship, so I have always believed that we support our President off shore, a tradition, you may have noticed, that has been violated by several Democrats,of late.

I find it troubling when anybody says “non – belief — in anything — might be unpatriotic”, because it sets ideological standards for patriotism that you or I mght fail to meet at any given moment. The slippery slope I mentioned is toward level of support of certain things. It was suggested in two places in liberal circles that supporting the President, or not fully accepting that Libby and Rove committed crimes were unpatriotic.

Could that mean that not waiting for indictment, trial and verdict is not patriotic? Didn’t these people see The Ox – Bow Incident or Twelve Angry Men?

Frank, while I cant say i agree with the Republican party on many issues, I can certainly understand how many people are attracted to the concepts of free markets, social conservatism, etc. I have agreed to disagree in this aspect.

This presidency however, is doing things that transcend political affiliation. Spending recklessly and appointing your buddies to positions of power were never a part of the GOP’s platform last I checked. Can you fill me in on how this qualifies as having the country’s interest as a priority?

Actually, Democrats were free to believe that Bush did not know about 9/11 beforehand; that he did not, deliberately get jets off the ground in time to stop two passenger jets; that Bush did not “chauffeur his Arabian friends out of the US”. They just didn’t.

As to whether not avenging 9/11 was patriotic, I don’t remember anyone saying it wasn’t, do you?

You were saying?

“Those who are not annoyed, regardless of of their political stripes, are indeed not patriotic. They are the members of Bush s personality cult, and put their defense of his public image above and beyond the what is best for the country.”

Indeed. You can also describe these hacks as being for their political party first; then comes the interests of the country as a whole. Party loyalty sometimes means anti-american.