Max's Shrink

Quote from max401:

So you agree with these Democratic politicians?

Tom Daschle

Madeleine Albright
More...

I do as far as there fervor to facilitate a regime change in Iraq. As I believe I have stated, I do not believe this issue to be a Dem/Rep or Lib/Conservative situation.

Furthermore, I am surprised at your continuous assumptions (by implication of your tone and content) that I am myself aligned with one party or another, or that I am a liberal or conservative. As we have discussed many times during your sessions, some people don't want to be labeled, and some, like myself just can't be. I thought we were making progress getting you to understand this. Perhaps we have regressed. On Tuesday we will re-evaluate your dosages of the Thorazine and the Paxil, and most certainly the Xanax. Don't fret Max, we will get you leveled out eventually. Thank God we do not need to use the extreme, (and in my opinion, rather barbaric) approaches my colleagues have been applying in the treatment of MrMarket and Shortboy. (Electroshock and restraints...horrible treatments IMO).

But back to your inquiry:

Saddam must go!

I question whether we need commit several hundred thousand troops to eliminate one man. I do not see Daschle or Albright clamoring for a massive attack on a nation in those quotes. Just strong statements of objectives. Not of specific approach.

Then again, as I have also said, I am not a military strategist. How would you propose to rid the world of this murderous lunatic? Tell us your plan Max. Carpet bombing of an entire nation of oppresses people? Let's see; can't defoliate a desert. Can't bomb the desert back into the stone age, 'cause that condition already exists. Maybe destroying Baghdad would be fun. Sure to inflict great casualties, but not necessarily the one casualty we want.

What would you do? I trust you have a plan. By all means, please share your military precocity with us all.

Yours,
Dr. S.
 
Quote from hapaboy:


Make no mistake about it. If Saddam doesn't exile himself or is not removed internally, we are going to invade Iraq.

Earlier in this crisis Powell, your hero, was the lone dovish voice in the hierarchy. Clearly he has been convinced that diplomacy is no longer a reasonable solution.

What will your response be when we do indeed attack?
More...

Hapaboy,

I agree, we will invade Iraq if Saddam does not exile himself. And as he told Dan Rather (and therefore the world), he has no plan on doing so.

But invading Iraq can be construed many ways. Sending in several hundred thousand troops is an invasion. Sending in a small elite team of commandos is an invasion. Max will tell us how it should be done. At least I have requested that he tell us.

You say Powell was the "lone dovish voice". I believe what you meant to convey was he was the prudent and thoughtful member of the Bush cabinet. His statesmanship in holding off what seems now to be an imminent and unavoidable invasion has served our country well. We cannot be looked on now as impulsive bullies by the world at large as we would have if Dubya had his way and invaded a year and a half ago without any diplomatic effort. Without at least trying to assemble a coalition of allies.

Now you seem to imply that Powell has given up on diplomacy. Please explain. Better yet, skip it. I already know what you are going to tell us. It is a matter of running out of options. This is how the world works. So far, apparently we have not exhausted ALL options, because we are not yet fighting. But I agree with you, the chances of push not coming to shove are negligible.

Let us not forget. Powell is a soldier. He, better than most Secretaries of State is best prepared to evaluate options of war vs. diplomacy. We have not had a military person in this Cabinet position since Haig ("I'm in charge here") in 1981. Powell is the right man at the right time.

Albright and Kissinger never wore a uniform. Nor did Warren Christopher. And James (fuck the jews) Baker? http://www.hereinreality.com/baker.html

Who better to decide if war is the best option than a man like Powell?

Yours,
Dr. S.
 
Quote from Max401'sShrink:



I do as far as there fervor to facilitate a regime change in Iraq. As I believe I have stated, I do not believe this issue to be a Dem/Rep or Lib/Conservative situation.

Furthermore, I am surprised at your continuous assumptions (by implication of your tone and content) that I am myself aligned with one party or another, or that I am a liberal or conservative. As we have discussed many times during your sessions, some people don't want to be labeled, and some, like myself just can't be. I thought we were making progress getting you to understand this. Perhaps we have regressed. On Tuesday we will re-evaluate your dosages of the Thorazine and the Paxil, and most certainly the Xanax. Don't fret Max, we will get you leveled out eventually. Thank God we do not need to use the extreme, (and in my opinion, rather barbaric) approaches my colleagues have been applying in the treatment of MrMarket and Shortboy. (Electroshock and restraints...horrible treatments IMO).

But back to your inquiry:

Saddam must go!

I question whether we need commit several hundred thousand troops to eliminate one man. I do not see Daschle or Albright clamoring for a massive attack on a nation in those quotes. Just strong statements of objectives. Not of specific approach.

Then again, as I have also said, I am not a military strategist. How would you propose to rid the world of this murderous lunatic? Tell us your plan Max. Carpet bombing of an entire nation of oppresses people? Let's see; can't defoliate a desert. Can't bomb the desert back into the stone age, 'cause that condition already exists. Maybe destroying Baghdad would be fun. Sure to inflict great casualties, but not necessarily the one casualty we want.

What would you do? I trust you have a plan. By all means, please share your military precocity with us all.

Yours,
Dr. S.
More...
Docktor Nutcase, in the current times, how could these two liberal Democrats even make outlandish statements such as those? See, you don't even follow current events. Those statements were made in 1999 when good ol' Willy Clinton was bombing Iraq on the day of his scheduled impeachment.

From my favorite political pundit:

"Now here we are, more than four years later, Saddam still hasn't complied with U.N. resolutions, and America has been attacked by Islamic crazies -- and these same Democrats think Bush is acting impulsively. Democrats are always hawks in the off-season. They're all for war, provided it has nothing to do with America's security. "
 
Quote from max401:

Docktor Nutcase, .....See, you don't even follow current events. Those statements were made in 1999 when good ol' Willy Clinton was bombing Iraq on the day of his scheduled impeachment.

From my favorite political pundit:

"Now here we are, more than four years later, Saddam still hasn't complied with U.N. resolutions, and America has been attacked by Islamic crazies -- and these same Democrats think Bush is acting impulsively. Democrats are always hawks in the off-season. They're all for war, provided it has nothing to do with America's security. "
More...

My dear young man,

What difference does it make when the statements were made? Obviously the Albright statement was made during her tenure in the cabinet. Since virtually nothing she has said since has been newsworthy. So what? And Daschle.....what possible point are you trying to make regarding the date of his statement? Is Iraq somehow a different concern now than it was in 1999? Was Iraq not virtually always a strategic problem for America and democracy overall? Have we just now become aware of the potential for danger from Saddam? We did not notice him until 9/11? C'mon Max. If nothing else, the fires of Kuwait and the gassing of his own people gave us a clue as to the extraordinary insanity of this lunatic. And his willingness to defy humanity and the very future of our planet.

As for your "favorite political pundit".........it is encouraging to know that you are consistent. Generalize. Stereotype. Just make sure that all Democrats/"Liberals" are wrong and you will certainly strengthen your arguments. I just wish I could understand what argument you are trying to make:confused:

"All for war, provided it has nothing to do with America's security". How absurd. And how entertaining. Which is what your "pundit" is paid to be. Forget accuracy. Just as long as it is amusing, self serving and entertaining. That is the business of your "pundit". Max, I know you are far to bright to think otherwise. You can't possibly believe that Democrats are not concerned with America's security. If you do, then I must have you on the wrong medication. But fear not. We will try everything until we get you back into reality. Today's pharmaceuticals work wonders. It is just a matter of finding the right combination and dosage.

Meanwhile, fear not. Take my word for it. You know you can trust me. Every American is concerned with the security of our nation. Even the Libertarians. Even the Socialists. The Christian Falangist Party, the American Nazi Party. The Green Party. All of them. Every American is concerned. If they are not, they are not Americans. They may live here, but in truth, if they are not concerned about this, they are our enemies.

Never has a single topic been as clear and as non-partisan as the security of our country. From the most reactionary skinheads in Idaho to the ultra liberal fanatics in Harlem, they all have this one issue in common.

Yours,
Dr. S.

PS: Why is it necessary to quote entire posts? Perhaps I should be flattered that you feel my words are worth reading twice, but I assure you that for most of us, once is enough. For the sake of brevity, you can just quote bits and pieces. We will get the idea. I fear your compulsive behavior is a bad reflection on my efforts to stabilize your condition. I know you can do better. Just a little effort and you will see you can do it. We need to work together to get you well. I can't be 100% responsible. Nor can your health insurance plan. It HAS to be a cooperative effort Max.
 
Quote from Max401'sShrink:



My dear young man,

What difference does it make when the statements were made? Obviously the Albright statement was made during her tenure in the cabinet. Since virtually nothing she has said since has been newsworthy. So what? And Dashle.....what possible point are you trying to make regarding the date of his statement? Is Iraq somehow a different concern now than it was in 1999? Was Iraq not virtually always a stategic problem for America and democracy overall? Have we just now become aware of the potential for danger from Saddam? We did not notice him until 9/11? C'mon Max. If nothing else, the fires of Kuwait and the gassing of his own poeple gave us a clue as to the extraordinary insanity of this lunatic. And his willingness to defy humanity and the very future of our planet.

As for your "favorite political pundit".........it is encouraging to know that you are consistent. Generalize. Stereotype. Just make sure that all Democrats/"Liberals" are wrong and you will certainly strengthen your arguments. I just wish I could understand what argument you are trying to make:confused:

"All for war, provided it has nothing to do with America's security". How absurd. And how entertaining. Which is what your "pundit" is paid to be. Forget accuracey. Just as long as it is amusing, self serving and entertaining. That is the business of your "pundit". Max, I know you are far to bright to think otherwise. You can't possibly believe that Democrats are not concerned with America's security. If you do, then I must have you on the wrong medication. But fear not. We will try everything until we get you back into reality. Today's pharmaceuticals work wonders. It is just a matter of finding the right combination and dosage.

Meanwhile, fear not. Take my word for it. You know you can trust me. Every American is concerned with the security of our nation. Even the Libertarians. Even the Socialists. The Christian Falangist Party, the American Nazi Party. The Green Party. All of them. Every American is concerned. If they are not, they are not Americans. They may live here, but in truth, if they are not concerned about this, they are our enemies.

Never has a single topic been as clear and as non-partisan as the security of our country. From the most reactionary skinheads in Idaho to the ultra liberal fanatics in Harlem, they all have this one issue in common.

Yours,
Dr. S.
More...
My, oh my... you write just like someone, well, whose writing I'm quite familiar with, right down to the placement of the smiley icons.
 
Quote from max401:

My, oh my... you write just like someone, well, whose writing I'm quite familiar with, right down to the placement of the smiley icons.
More...

Hmmmmm. One smiley icon and you can discern so much. I knew you were a very bright (if somewhat misguided) young man. However, I did not realize you were clairvoyant. But I admit to having missed my bets on previous occasions. Perhaps you truly do have supernatural abilities. Yet somehow I still harbor my doubts. While I am quite certain you suspect you have encountered my literary efforts of yore, I would not be so certain if I were in your shoes. While I have followed your exploits with great interest both in my office and on these boards of Elite Trader, I assure you that you are probably jumping to conclusions that are quite unfounded. Then again, perhaps you have it all figured out exactly right. Just like you have it figured out that all Democrats are Clinton loving left wing liberals and all Republicans are right thinking conservative intellectuals with a superior understanding of current events and world affairs.

Yet unless I miss my bet, I would assume you believe me to be one of your usual protagonists. However, I will give you a hint. I am NOT one of your war hating gun control advocates you so love to antagonize. I am a proud owner of a fine collection of firearms and a firm believer in the second amendment. You and I have at least that much in common. And no, I am not of Latin descent, so you can eliminate that obvious conclusion. And further, I am not your favorite married Jewish friend. I am quite single and quite the blue eyed blond haired aryan (as you should recall from your office visits).

Regardless of all this, you continue quoting entire posts. Pray tell why. Most assuredly you cannot think my posts are all that noteworthy. Or do you?

Interesting behavior. You certainly make my job interesting. I will hand you that!

Best,
Dr. S.
 
Quote from Max401'sShrink:



And further, I am not your favorite married Jewish friend.
More...

Gee, what a subtle way of referring to me.

Have fun with Max Dr. , but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss his opinions. While I have found him to be somewhat rigid in his views, I also know that he is more often right (no pun intended) than he is wrong.

And Max, thanks for the info on the laptop issue. It is amazing how much misinformation Toshiba's website and telephone support contains. I did something the other day....lost my control panel "look"....couldn't get it to go back to the XP look from the "classic" look. So I called Toshiba, and the guy tells me to reinstall Windows. Even I knew there had to be a better way to accomplish what I wanted. And with a little trial and error, I did. What a schmuck that guy was...or just too lazy to think it through. I get better advice from you and guys like Nitro and so many others here than from the guys that get paid to give it.

As for Dr. Whatever....get in there an slug! I can't figure out where he is coming from. Sounds like one of my "liberal" pals one minute, and more like a Jesse Ventura Libertarian the next. I think he is PC (politically confused).

Peace,
:)Rs7
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top