Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Gamaliel, The magnificent
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
Joseph100
Greetings, thank God for somebody who has courage to call to task the lies and contemptible abuse and malfeasance of power which Wikipedia and its untouchable faceless army of power drunk drones exercise for sheer purpose of tasting the narcissistic drink of power, at the expense of pain and suffering they cause those who can't defend themselves.

And starting my post, I wonder if anyone has run in to an administrator named "Gamaliel".

First, I would like to hear from this community, regarding this person, who's contempt and arrogance appears to have no bounds as well as it would seem he has way too much time on his hands before I present my story about this little man.

Any rate, thank you.
JoeHazelton
Daniel Brandt
Gamaliel is evil. He blocked me forever last April. He works closely with SlimVirgin. Need I say more?

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html#016

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/rfernand.html (click on "pictures" in the left frame)

nobs
Gamaliel functions moreless as a bailiff for ArbCom. I think they should just formalize the position as they have the Clerks Office.
Skyrocket
I've encountered Gamaliel. He's a pigheaded fool, tending toward condescending remarks about other people's edits and opinions. He has a physical, as well as a temperamental, resemblance to the putrid Raul654.
nobs
My last contact with Gamaliel was in this series of exchanges at Wikien-1.

Dr. Christina Jeffries was libelled and defamed as being anti-Semitic. She resigned as Historian of the US House of Representatives. The position then remained vacant for ten years, largely because of the actions of the wreckless partisans who targeted her. Reappointing someone else to fill the postion then would give credence to the disgusting tactics employed by her alleged "critics". The real target was, however, Newt Gingrich. Gamaliel created the stub 22 May 2005, nearly ten years after the controversy, and it read,
QUOTE
Gingrich appointed Christina Jeffrey, a political scientist from Kennesaw State College, to the post in January 1995 but he fired her a few days later as a result of a controversy about comments she had written evaluating a program called Facing History and Ourselves for the US Department of Education in 1986. She wrote "The program gives no evidence of balance or objectivity. The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view and is not presented, nor is that of the Ku Klux Klan." Democrats and Jewish groups expressed outrage at the comments, but Jeffrey stated that the allegations against here were "slanderous and outrageous"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=14108307


I was tempted to privately e-mail Gamaliel and tell him there is no way he will ever convince me that he was not attempting to libel, slander, and defame Newt Gingrich through Wikipedia with this blatant use of innuendo. But that woud be out of character for me.
Joseph100
QUOTE(nobs @ Sat 27th January 2007, 3:10am) *

My last contact with Gamaliel was in this series of exchanges at Wikien-1.

Dr. Christina Jeffries was libelled and defamed as being anti-Semitic. She resigned as Historian of the US House of Representatives. The position then remained vacant for ten years, largely because of the actions of the wreckless partisans who targeted her. Reappointing someone else to fill the postion then would give credence to the disgusting tactics employed by her alleged "critics". The real target was, however, Newt Gingrich. Gamaliel created the stub 22 May 2005, nearly ten years after the controversy, and it read,
QUOTE
Gingrich appointed Christina Jeffrey, a political scientist from Kennesaw State College, to the post in January 1995 but he fired her a few days later as a result of a controversy about comments she had written evaluating a program called Facing History and Ourselves for the US Department of Education in 1986. She wrote "The program gives no evidence of balance or objectivity. The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view and is not presented, nor is that of the Ku Klux Klan." Democrats and Jewish groups expressed outrage at the comments, but Jeffrey stated that the allegations against here were "slanderous and outrageous"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=14108307


I was tempted to privately e-mail Gamaliel and tell him there is no way he will ever convince me that he was not attempting to libel, slander, and defame Newt Gingrich through Wikipedia with this blatant use of innuendo. But that woud be out of character for me.



Gamaliel is out of control. He, appears to endangers Wikipedia to legal action, by those who are hurt his malfeasance as an administrator for wikipeida.

This administrator Gamaliel accuses any aon account which edits contrary to his agenda and point of view gets labeled as a sock puppet or worse. There appears to be no control or discipline for this rogue administrator who constantly violates "neutral point of view" shows bias on articles which are biographies of living persons and shields meat puppets which consistently edit, contrary to published wikipedia policy. The abuse of this administrators power borders on megalomania endangers the Wikipedia to legal action by those who may not be happy with their biographies on Wikipedia.

I have been trying very hard to fix the biased and near slanderous libelous trash that foisted as Encyclopedia on the article for Congressman Peter Roskam who happens to be a Republica Gamaliel, a hard-core Democrat, exercises the restraint and S6 of a dockside thug whose hateful and bias bullying, it if it wasn't so damaging, would be laughable. Over the course of many months, I've been trying to correct the flaws with the Peter Roskam article but Gamaliel and his rogue editor pacts and his to sock puppet/meat puppet protégés have been able to lock out all discussions and editing contrary to their point of view which is to damage this man at any cost. These three, the triad of meat, with the use of bully boy tactics, Wikipedia lawyering gaming the rules, and other disingenuous deceitful and downright sinister tactics - they have able to control content and keep out any other points of view except there's which is again a Democratic agenda to damage the reputation of a Republican congressman.

I suspect that they work for the party are and could very well be paid operatives God only knows since there is no proper peer review nor accountability for anything that they do in particular this administrator [Gamaliel operates as Lord Almighty on high and acts as him and a few others are part of a Star chamber and above any control or restraint or accountability.

At the very least, would be my hope that Wikipedia is destroyed by those who may have the resources and the gumption to file a class-action lawsuit challenging section 230 as well is holding them accountable her first amendment to customary standards of slander and libel and that damages be sufficient enough to close Wikipedia as well as a hope that those who are wronged are compensated as well as the law section 230 is change to properly define the difference between a service provider and one that is a content provider.

I think what would be important, is a packet of well documented information is compiled, as well as a well written argument stating facts and reasons why Wikipedia and those other sites like Wikipedia is an evil, toxic and and represent a clear and present danger to the Internetat large. That, as in print and in as in speech, online blogs, newspapers, Wikipedia should held accountable to the same standards in the first amendment of the Constitution, as far as slander and libel is concerned as all other forms of speech are held to.

Also personally I would like to see Lord Almighty King "chit" Gamaliel be held personally accountable for the kind of slanderous libelous malfeasance that he allows to take place under his stewardship. It is my guess that if such a class action lawsuit were to take place that Jimbo and company would toss Gamaliel off the wiki sled and on to the wolves faster than you can say RFC.

It would be my hope, at the very least, that such a lawsuit would make Gamaliel and his good buddy Jimbo an a very visible example, as to show that nobody, at least in the United States, can operate above the law of the land and that wiki policy is not the same as civil or criminal justice under the rules of the US Constitution not above the law of the land.

Considering what I've seen and how Gamaliel treats people in the total salacious contempt and condescending attitude is indicative of this little man's thirst for power and how a little power can corrupt, totally, little men like Gamaliel.
Elara
I love the vitriol. (eats popcorn)
nobs
QUOTE(Elara @ Wed 31st January 2007, 6:50pm) *
I love the vitriol. (eats popcorn)
So Gamaliel is a DNC operative out to destroy Western Civilization. I guess that's the gist of it.
Joseph100
QUOTE(nobs @ Thu 1st February 2007, 2:01am) *

QUOTE(Elara @ Wed 31st January 2007, 6:50pm) *
I love the vitriol. (eats popcorn)
So Gamaliel is a DNC operative out to destroy Western Civilization. I guess that's the gist of it.


Greetings:

Lets put it this way, he behaves as one... whether or not he is, one can only speculate. But, his actions are those whos aggenda is very clear.

Somey
QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Tue 30th January 2007, 5:06pm) *
At the very least, would be my hope that Wikipedia is destroyed by those who may have the resources and the gumption to file a class-action lawsuit challenging section 230 as well is holding them accountable her first amendment to customary standards of slander and libel and that damages be sufficient enough to close Wikipedia as well as a hope that those who are wronged are compensated as well as the law section 230 is change to properly define the difference between a service provider and one that is a content provider.

Are you in a position to bring Section 230 issues to the attention of actual US legislators? I mean, I've already written to my Congressman, and though he doesn't seem all that interested so far, every little bit helps I suppose. Someone like Roskam, who's more directly affected, though...? I mean, all those mean ol' Republicans have to be good for something, right? smile.gif

QUOTE
Considering what I've seen and how Gamaliel treats people in the total salacious contempt and condescending attitude is indicative of this little man's thirst for power and how a little power can corrupt, totally, little men like Gamaliel.

And to think he named himself after the middle name of Warren G. Harding, a Republican president! (And not even one of the good ones!)

Anyhoo, regardless of one's political leanings, it's the quiet/subtle/sneaky WP'ers who are capable of doing the most damage, both to WP's credibility and the political landscape at large. You don't hear about Gamaliel all that much... Of course, being a somewhat left-of-center sort myself, it's a bit harder for me to get especially worked up over the guy, but I can see how it could get pretty frustrating!
Somey
By the way, I love popcorn! (drinks vitriol) laugh.gif
guy
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 1st February 2007, 5:30am) *

And to think he named himself after the middle name of Warren G. Harding, a Republican president! (And not even one of the good ones!)

Oh! I've been assuming that it was from one of the 1st century rabbis of that name and he was claiming to be Jewish.
Joseph100
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 1st February 2007, 5:30am) *

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Tue 30th January 2007, 5:06pm) *
At the very least, would be my hope that Wikipedia is destroyed by those who may have the resources and the gumption to file a class-action lawsuit challenging section 230 as well is holding them accountable her first amendment to customary standards of slander and libel and that damages be sufficient enough to close Wikipedia as well as a hope that those who are wronged are compensated as well as the law section 230 is change to properly define the difference between a service provider and one that is a content provider.

Are you in a position to bring Section 230 issues to the attention of actual US legislators? I mean, I've already written to my Congressman, and though he doesn't seem all that interested so far, every little bit helps I suppose. Someone like Roskam, who's more directly affected, though...? I mean, all those mean ol' Republicans have to be good for something, right? smile.gif

QUOTE
Considering what I've seen and how Gamaliel treats people in the total salacious contempt and condescending attitude is indicative of this little man's thirst for power and how a little power can corrupt, totally, little men like Gamaliel.

And to think he named himself after the middle name of Warren G. Harding, a Republican president! (And not even one of the good ones!)

Anyhoo, regardless of one's political leanings, it's the quiet/subtle/sneaky WP'ers who are capable of doing the most damage, both to WP's credibility and the political landscape at large. You don't hear about Gamaliel all that much... Of course, being a somewhat left-of-center sort myself, it's a bit harder for me to get especially worked up over the guy, but I can see how it could get pretty frustrating!


See my PM for the answer... please keep it to your self.
nobs
QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Wed 31st January 2007, 10:10pm) *
QUOTE(nobs @ Thu 1st February 2007, 2:01am) *
QUOTE(Elara @ Wed 31st January 2007, 6:50pm) *
I love the vitriol. (eats popcorn)
So Gamaliel is a DNC operative out to destroy Western Civilization. I guess that's the gist of it.
Lets put it this way, he behaves as one... whether or not he is, one can only speculate. But, his actions are those whos aggenda is very clear.
Partisans are a dime a dozen. So are partisan operatives. Going after the brain may be more constructive rather than a strong-arm enforcer.
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 1st February 2007, 5:30am) *
he named himself after the middle name of Warren G. Harding, a Republican president! (And not even one of the good ones!)
Another crazed sex-pervert who used the Oval Office for all sorts of unspeakable self ambition.

Incidentally, why wasn’t Bill Clinton investigated by the IRS for converting government resources to personal use, i.e. he failed to report cost or fair market value of Secret Service protection and Oval Office as income on Form 1040 when he illegally converted those resources to personal use. Oliver North’s only conviction is based on an identical investigation and conviction.
Somey
QUOTE(nobs @ Thu 1st February 2007, 11:57am) *
Incidentally, why wasn’t Bill Clinton investigated by the IRS for converting government resources to personal use, i.e. he failed to report cost or fair market value of Secret Service protection and Oval Office as income on Form 1040 when he illegally converted those resources to personal use.

He did report them, didn't he? I'm looking at his tax returns right now, and there's a line on his Schedule C that mentions reimbursement for "official sexcapade cover-up services." It was only $20.00, but it's something. As for the other thing, well... I've never had to report reimbursement costs simply for using my own office for private sexcapades without having the Secret Service around, so why should he? Can't a guy have a sexcapade in his own office without having to get the IRS involved every time? If we couldn't have "perks" like that, why would any of us even go to the trouble of getting jobs in the first place? (Much less getting elected into them?)

Besides, the "fair-market value" of Secret Service protection for that sort of thing is probably close to nil. That wasn't the sort of protection he really needed at that point, I suspecky! laugh.gif
nobs
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 1st February 2007, 3:28pm) *

I'm looking at his tax returns right now, and there's a line on his Schedule C that mentions reimbursement for "official sexcapade cover-up services." It was only $20.00, but it's something. As for the other thing, well... I've never had to report reimbursement costs simply for using my own office for private sexcapades without having the Secret Service around, so why should he? Can't a guy have a sexcapade in his own office without having to get the IRS involved every time? If we couldn't have "perks" like that, why would any of us even go to the trouble of getting jobs in the first place? (Much less getting elected into them?)

Besides, the "fair-market value" of Secret Service protection for that sort of thing is probably close to nil. That wasn't the sort of protection he really needed at that point, I suspecky! laugh.gif
Well, using cost as basis, the illegal conversion of government property for personal use, i.e. the cost of using the Oval Office for a sexual tryst compared to the fair market value of a night at the Motel 6 is staggering. This is not unprecedented, however; and is actually fairly routine and covered under law. Congressional junkets, for example, or reporters who fly along on Air Force One are not required to reimburse using cost as basis, but rather fair market value. I would presume, despite the fact Nixon & Oliver North were pursued in manufactured scandals of an identical basis, the fact that Clinton was showed favoritism by investigators, prosecutors, and the media, and not hounded despite a blatant disregard for the law, a tax court would probably have ruled ( a ) failure to report income; ( b ) assess taxes and penalties based upon fair market value.

Further reading:
USC Title 18 Section 641, "... converts to his use ..."
as to tax consequences,
Illegal income
Note: Spiro Agnew resigned the Vice Presidency for failure to file illegal income.
Somey
Okay, whatever.

Getting back to the original subject, I think what's needed here is a concerted effort to develop some boilerplate language for an appeal to US legislators regarding the Section 230 issue. This is one area where I think all of us, lefties and righties alike, can find some common ground, even if our motives for it aren't exactly similar.

I can probably get things started, though I'm a little hesitant to be seen as taking over on such an important issue... Still, the gist of it, presumably, is that the language is unclear with respect to website operators who take some sort of role in content development.

In order to seem at least slightly more reasonable about it, I'd say our focus should be on recommending that the law be "clarified" in such a way as to put website operators into the same category as marketers/spammers - thereby requiring that some form of opt-out policy be provided, purely as a matter of course. That would be the "minimum acceptable solution," with full legal liability for website operators being more of an "extreme" solution.

If there are more than one or two added suggestions, I'll move the relevant material into a new thread. (The Clinton-bashing, well... that might end up in the Lounge at some point.)
nobs
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 1st February 2007, 5:19pm) *
what's needed here is a concerted effort to develop some boilerplate language for an appeal to US legislators regarding the Section 230 issue.
OK. I will devote time to that. The link we got from Danial Brandt, Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia I have been studying, and many issues are new to me, but I do have vast symapthy for victims who get targeted by...ehhmm, 'bad guys'.

As to the 'bashing' as you call it, I'm just illustrating where mindless partisanship leads to, and leave for others to decide, who has engaged in it, and who -- when completely justified to do so -- refrained.
gomi
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 1st February 2007, 4:19pm) *

I think what's needed here is a concerted effort to develop some boilerplate language for an appeal to US legislators regarding the Section 230 issue.

Wouldn't going after Wikipedia with a big COPA stick be more effective? (Ahem, hasten to add, this doesn't solve Brandt's problem, (except maybe indirectly), but would bring a world of hurt on ol' Jimbo).
Somey
You guys are talking about trying to use existing US law to bring down some sort of punishment on Wikipedia, whether it be criminal or civil - that would obviously be great and fantastic and all, but ultimately it requires lawyers, District Attorneys, and so forth, not to mention a fairly solid case, and possibly some plaintiffs. In other words, Big-Time Ca$$$hos Muchachas!

What I'm talking about, and what I believe Joseph100 is sort of implying, is that we try to get a grass-roots letter-writing effort going to try and get the law itself changed. That too is risky, though, since there's always the chance that the law might be rendered even less clear or useful than it is now. However, that approach does have the advantage of being cheap.

Right now, the law is written as if its primary goals are first to support the protection of children from porn and predators via blocking software (i.e., blocking software = good), and second to indemnify ISP's against the actions of pornographers and predators who may be using their facilities without their having any idea as to what they're using them for (i.e., ISP's = businessmen = good). Wikipedia and other Web 2.0 sites are claiming to have the same status as ISP's in this regard, but our goal should be to remind legislators that unlike ISP's, website operators usually know very, very well what sort of content is being published and distributed on their "services." In Wikipedia's case, they're actively influencing it and helping to develop it.

So we just have to be realistic here. The US Congress isn't going to make Wikipedia go away - even if they wanted to do that, the Foundation could always just relocate the servers offshore. The goal has to be modest enough to appeal to politicians as something reasonable, and also reasonable enough to appeal to the media as worthy of some attention. It would also be nice if it were something we know there's already some modicum of support inside Wikipedia for. And, of course, it also has to appeal to Big Business as being non-threatening to their interests, or else, well, you know who the average US politician will side with...

Remember, all we're doing is writing up some boilerplate for some letters to politicians. Not a class-action suit, not an evidence-gathering, not a Holy War. Excessively grandiose talk will only lead to false hopes and quick waning of interest, I'm afraid. mellow.gif
gomi
Well, I was thinking of writing one's Congressdroid a note saying: "Dear Sen. McTurd - My 10-year-old daughter was researching a term paper on Republicans on Wikipedia and found a big picture of a big WP:DICK. I thought there were laws about this sort of thing!, Yours, Tipper BigDonor"
Joseph100
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 2nd February 2007, 12:19am) *

Okay, whatever.

Getting back to the original subject, I think what's needed here is a concerted effort to develop some boilerplate language for an appeal to US legislators regarding the Section 230 issue. This is one area where I think all of us, lefties and righties alike, can find some common ground, even if our motives for it aren't exactly similar.

I can probably get things started, though I'm a little hesitant to be seen as taking over on such an important issue... Still, the gist of it, presumably, is that the language is unclear with respect to website operators who take some sort of role in content development.

In order to seem at least slightly more reasonable about it, I'd say our focus should be on recommending that the law be "clarified" in such a way as to put website operators into the same category as marketers/spammers - thereby requiring that some form of opt-out policy be provided, purely as a matter of course. That would be the "minimum acceptable solution," with full legal liability for website operators being more of an "extreme" solution.

If there are more than one or two added suggestions, I'll move the relevant material into a new thread. (The Clinton-bashing, well... that might end up in the Lounge at some point.)



It was one thing that I'm sure the lefty will agree upon is that it is unethical, immoral and wrong to distort facts with lies and to savage somebodies reputation and good name without basis of fact. This can applied equally, with the same sharpness of a sword regardless of the edge to the left or the right. Now, I make no bones of the fact that I'm a Republican, by choice and believe in its classical ideology, which at present may not be practice by the current Republican president, nevertheless, I am up Republican. That said, the fact that they can slander, defame, and libel my guy only means that when the political winds blow right then it may be your guy that can be slandered, defamed, and libeled with equal vigor. Now I have no problem with anonymous speech, but the problem with Wikipedia is that there's no equal platform to rebuttal the anonymous poster because that anonymous poster is protected by an anonymous moderator/administrator and the rules of debate and discussion, as well as posters trying to rebut argument are disrespected. The primary flaw, I see with Wikipedia, is that one side of the argument, through bully and guile, can squelch the other side without rhyme or reason. Any rate, I have a feeling that the left and right have a common ground in this idea of fairness.

Also, pressure applied may, at the very lest, to change Wikipeida. For me though, my persoanl goals is to kill it off and make it pay. Now that may be unrealistic, but what can I say.. only big plans can stir the hearts of men. as one Chicagoan once said.

nobs
QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Fri 2nd February 2007, 7:57am) *

Now, I make no bones of the fact that I'm a Republican, by choice and believe in its classical ideology, which at present may not be practice by the current Republican president, nevertheless, I am up Republican.
Hmmm...it seems the current policy of the RNC & Republicans leaders is to build dialogue and concensus with, let's call 'em, non-Republicans. And principally to garner support for the War on Terrorism. Yes, it's us against them, i.e. all Americans against ideologues who wish to dsestroy Western Civiliazation. Partisan division works ( a ) against the American people's unity in the War on Terrorism ( b ) to the advantrage of adversaries.

Playing the game that the DNC is part of America's adversaries is bullcrap, and works against Republican objectives, unless you subscribe to the theory that Republican objectives work against America. So what is ( a ) the point of domestic partisan warfare; ( b ) to be gained by such?
Joseph100
QUOTE(nobs @ Fri 2nd February 2007, 6:34pm) *

QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Fri 2nd February 2007, 7:57am) *

Now, I make no bones of the fact that I'm a Republican, by choice and believe in its classical ideology, which at present may not be practice by the current Republican president, nevertheless, I am up Republican.
Hmmm...it seems the current policy of the RNC & Republicans leaders is to build dialogue and concensus with, let's call 'em, non-Republicans. And principally to garner support for the War on Terrorism. Yes, it's us against them, i.e. all Americans against ideologues who wish to dsestroy Western Civiliazation. Partisan division works ( a ) against the American people's unity in the War on Terrorism ( b ) to the advantrage of adversaries.

Playing the game that the DNC is part of America's adversaries is bullcrap, and works against Republican objectives, unless you subscribe to the theory that Republican objectives work against America. So what is ( a ) the point of domestic partisan warfare; ( b ) to be gained by such?


Well, you above appears to be little off-topic, but if you have noted I'm a classical Republican which is the following:


" Republican Creed

I am a Republican because ...

I believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I believe in equal rights, equal justice and opportunity for all, regardless of race, sex, creed, age or disability.

I believe free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I believe government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of what they earn.

I believe the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.

I believe the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I believe Americans must retain principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of the times.

I believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

Finally, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.
"

Now, the above may be a little naïve and simple but I really believe this. We can argue, which is off thread and beside the point regarding Wikipedia and its fundamental flaws and unfairness to people you regardless of their political point of view.

But to show that I'm not afraid, I will engage one point of your post, my belief with the president and his flaws from the point of view of my political compass is as follows:

Number one: whether we should or should not have entered into the Iraqi adventure is is now academic. We can argue till the cows come in whether Bush went in to Iraq for greater and noble goal or for short term monetary gain for him and his friends. We can argue that till hell freezes over but the question that should be asked is how we can leave the situation without it leaving a total disaster... lets not forget that a good portion of the worlds oil comes from that part of the world. And if we should leave this place in a chaotic mess in which Islamic fundamentalists can now control most of the worlds oil then the other question that presents itself is simply how friendly or unfriendly such Islamic fundamentalists will be in its treatment of the West and its culture. Again I'm not saying that Islam is good or bad but the question is still simply that how will and how fairly the Islamic fundamentalists will treat the West and how it may or may not use oil as a weapon to help or hurt it.

Number two: the second issue, from a Republican point of view which I feel that should be stated in which I may have criticism with Bush is the fact that he reluctantly and only very very recently challenged some of the garbage lies misstatements and other rhetoric which the Democrats have been heaping on him for years and and now because of this the Democrats have now successfully defined him him and labeled him in a way that is somewhat disturbing. Bush did not, as Reagan did, in the 80s to challenge and address his critics from the bully pulpit of the presidency. If any fault could be put to Mr. Bush, is the fact that he allowed the Democratic Party and the most liberal and focal parts of that party to successfully define him and Mr. Bush not rise up and challenge them, so now perception is reality and the reality is is what many people now are saying about Mr. Bush.

There are other points regarding Mr. Bush I'm sure that you can point out to me regarding his fiscal responsibilities to the diminishing of the fifth and fourth amendment as well as other various things but this is not the place to bring forth such discussions.

But again, this is outside the issue of this tread which is basically how to we either shut down or change Wikipedia as regards to how it behaves.

If you wish to begin a dialogue regarding the merits of Republicanism or the current president I be very welcome to engage in polite and reasonable discussion on this subject someplace else on this forum.
nobs
QUOTE(Joseph100 @ Fri 2nd February 2007, 2:00pm) *
QUOTE(nobs @ Fri 2nd February 2007, 6:34pm) *
...unless you subscribe to the theory that Republican objectives work against America.
...short term monetary gain for him and his friends.
Honest to God, you lost me.
Somey
QUOTE(nobs @ Fri 2nd February 2007, 3:13pm) *
Honest to God, you lost me.

Hopefully he can give the rest of us some pointers, then! tongue.gif

The Republicans are sort of split now over the whole Bush situation, aren't they? There may even be a resurgence of "Rockefeller Republicanism" in the works, what with Mitt Romney running for President... I've probably got that all wrong, though.

Partisanship is not necessarily "mindless," Nobs. In fact, accusations of "partisanship" quite often can be taken to mean, "stop promoting your so-called 'ideology' and just agree with whatever I say, if you know what's good for you."
nobs
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 2nd February 2007, 2:28pm) *
Partisanship is not necessarily "mindless," Nobs.
Definitely. There are at least two brands; let's call them "partisanship", and "mindless partisanship". Mindless partisanship is, for example, Sen. Bradley who voted against Alan Greenspan in 1986 for Fed Chairman based upon guilt by association with Nixon. It was interesting hearing him try to explain how he opposed the flood of prosperity in the 90s that trickled down from opposition to Reaganism in the 80s. Generic partisanship, on the other hand, is a good curtailment to groupthink.

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 2nd February 2007, 2:28pm) *
The Republicans are sort of split now over the whole Bush situation, aren't they? There may even be a resurgence of "Rockefeller Republicanism" in the works, what with Mitt Romney running for President... I've probably got that all wrong, though.
Truth is, the GOP has been in danger of implosion since the end of the Cold War. Repubs can't possibly compete on domestic peacetime welfare state issues. 911 was a godsend, in a sence, cause the country had always looked to the GOP in times of international crisis (since Ike, at least).

But the current situation in reality is far too dangerous and complex to discuss in a few postings like this. Simply put, the War on Terror would exist, and will continue to exist, with or without G.W. Bush.

As to Eastern Repubs taking back the GOP, its a recipe for longterm disaster. I see Huckabee's in the mix now; (personally....nobs whispers..I'm looking at Evan Bayh and Huckabee....shhhh......)

Bonus Questions:
(1) Since the concensus now is that Sadam should have been left in power, are those who criticized Senior Bush for making exactly that decision, mindless partisans?
(2) Who will own the oil wells?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.