Posted: 12/21/2011 11:09:10 AM EDT
|
Here are my thoughts:
-Whistleblowers are useful in a free market. -Whistleblowers should be protected. -It is morally right to blow the whistle on immoral or illegal actions -It is good (but not always convenient) to have a guy/site like Julian Asange/wikileaks -I don't think Bradley Manning qualifies as a whistleblower as he carelessly copied and distributed hundreds of thousands of classified documents that he could not have screened for "immoral" actions and he did not censor out non pertinent info that could do America harm. I don't agree that he is any kind of hero. Rather he is a lady gaga attention whore. Time will tell if he is a "traitor" in the classic legal sense. At the minimum, he failed to protect classified docs as was his job. Side note: _____________________________________________ In regard to Ron Paul (because you all will bring it up), -I don't agree with him on this issue. -No candidate is perfect or agreed with 100%. -He is still leaps and bounds above all other candidates. -I will vote for him because he believes in YOUR freedom. -Trading liberty for perceived security is bullshit. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why another RP thread??? Attention whoring. We could get into the psychological reasons if you want, but they mostly have to do with a lack of positive attention as a child. I was going to guess sexual abuse. Too many things coming out of their ass for it to be anything else. |
|
You'll note that attention whores seem never to have learned to distinguish themselves by deeds: They only learned to set themselves apart by being "different."
In their minds, "unique" is special and therefore superior. It's a twisted mindset, but very common among frustrated underachievers. You see them often here. They include, but aren't limited to:
...just to name a few. 
|
|
Quoted: A question for y'all billy badasses: Ignoring the ron paul part, do you agree or disagree with the rest ofthe bullet points? Nice... Condescending and confrontational. Great way to start a discussion.  Bradley Manning did not release classified information out of any sort of altruism, or to expose corruption. What is being used as his defense so far? Statements to the effect of "he was a troubled young man and shouldn't have been given access" and he had/ has "gender identity issues". Notice that there has been no mention of his discovery of government corruption and a desire to fight it. There is a difference between a whistleblower and a military member committing a treasonous act. There are processes in place (yes - even within the military) for members to raise concerns about problems. Bradley Manning did not follow any process. Why? Because there was no altruism involved. Bradley Manning essentially threw a temper-tantrum in response to his treatment after failing to follow established rules. Rules he was aware of and made conscious decisions to violate. Bradley Manning could have decided to put his gender-identity issues on hold for the period of time left on his enlistment, depart the service, and and gone about leading his life as he desired. He did not do that - he chose to act in ways that violated the rules. Bradley Manning also chose to release classified information to a source he knew would widely disseminate that information. He worked with classified information. He knew the rules with regards to safe-guarding that information, and knew the potential repercussions for violating those rules. Responsibility. Choices. Consequences. I have zero sympathy for Bradley Manning. The fact that people cannot, or refuse to, see the difference between an actual whistleblower and a person committing a treasonous act, is extremely disturbing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A question for y'all billy badasses: Ignoring the ron paul part, do you agree or disagree with the rest ofthe bullet points? Nice... Condescending and confrontational. Great way to start a discussion. U
Bradley Manning did not release classified information out of any sort of altruism, or to expose corruption. What is being used as his defense so far? Statements to the effect of "he was a troubled young man and shouldn't have been given access" and he had/ has "gender identity issues". Notice that there has been no mention of his discovery of government corruption and a desire to fight it. There is a difference between a whistleblower and a military member committing a treasonous act. There are processes in place (yes - even within the military) for members to raise concerns about problems. Bradley Manning did not follow any process. Why? Because there was no altruism involved. Bradley Manning essentially threw a temper-tantrum in response to his treatment after failing to follow established rules. Rules he was aware of and made conscious decisions to violate. Bradley Manning could have decided to put his gender-identity issues on hold for the period of time left on his enlistment, depart the service, and and gone about leading his life as he desired. He did not do that - he chose to act in ways that violated the rules. Bradley Manning also chose to release classified information to a source he knew would widely disseminate that information. He worked with classified information. He knew the rules with regards to safe-guarding that information, and knew the potential repercussions for violating those rules. Responsibility. Choices. Consequences. I have zero sympathy for Bradley Manning. The fact that people cannot, or refuse to, see the difference between an actual whistleblower and a person committing a treasonous act, is extremely disturbing. So you agree with me. |
|
Quoted:
I don't agree that he is any kind of hero. Rather he is a lady gaga attention whore. Time will tell if he is a "traitor" in the classic legal sense. At the minimum, he failed to protect classified docs as was his job. If you look at the history of Traitors in this country, and all of their varying motiviations, very rarely will you find one that is driven out of and ideological sympathy for the enemy. Many cases it's financial. Some cases are about ethnic or religious issues (in this case Homosexual identity). And some cases involve sex. He is a Traitor by any possible interpretation. He violated his oath and his non-disclosure agreement, and provided clasified materiel to someone who intended to distribute it to the public and therefore the enemy. His training and signed agreements prove that he knew the risks and consequences of such actions. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Releasing classified information to the entire world is nothing to even remotely close to be compared to whistle blowing. That is downright treason. What about fast and furious? There is a line the size of the grand canyon between releasing information that damages national security and one that exposes a police force of doing unethical activities or abusing powers. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: A question for y'all billy badasses: Ignoring the ron paul part, do you agree or disagree with the rest ofthe bullet points? Nice... Condescending and confrontational. Great way to start a discussion. Bradley Manning did not release classified information out of any sort of altruism, or to expose corruption. What is being used as his defense so far? Statements to the effect of "he was a troubled young man and shouldn't have been given access" and he had/ has "gender identity issues". Notice that there has been no mention of his discovery of government corruption and a desire to fight it. There is a difference between a whistleblower and a military member committing a treasonous act. There are processes in place (yes - even within the military) for members to raise concerns about problems. Bradley Manning did not follow any process. Why? Because there was no altruism involved. Bradley Manning essentially threw a temper-tantrum in response to his treatment after failing to follow established rules. Rules he was aware of and made conscious decisions to violate. Bradley Manning could have decided to put his gender-identity issues on hold for the period of time left on his enlistment, depart the service, and and gone about leading his life as he desired. He did not do that - he chose to act in ways that violated the rules. Bradley Manning also chose to release classified information to a source he knew would widely disseminate that information. He worked with classified information. He knew the rules with regards to safe-guarding that information, and knew the potential repercussions for violating those rules. Responsibility. Choices. Consequences. I have zero sympathy for Bradley Manning. The fact that people cannot, or refuse to, see the difference between an actual whistleblower and a person committing a treasonous act, is extremely disturbing. That's what the OP said. He doesn't see this guy as a whistle blower. Did you miss that?  And this guy had gender issues? I never heard of him until yesterday. If he did what they say he did he needs to rot in prison. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Releasing classified information to the entire world is nothing to even remotely close to be compared to whistle blowing. That is downright treason. What about fast and furious? Apples and Oranges. Fast and Furious was a Law Enforcement operation. Leaking ALL of the fast and Furious documents would never amount to a charge of "Aiding the Enemy" or "Treason." Manning was a soldier serving in a war. His documents were classified to protect sources and methods, so as to safeguard the lives of US Servicemembers. He knew this, yet he leaked the information, anyway. Thus, he was charged with "Aiding the Enemy." |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Whistleblowing good. Treason bad. Got it? So you agree with me too. Amazing how people cant read the OP. I agree with what you said about whistle blowers. Bradly Manning is NOT a whistle blower, he is an anti-military/US activist. Whistle blowers have knowledge of specific incidents that violate legal or ethical codes. Manning simply stole sensitive information and released it to the public, hoping people would comb over it and discover something. |
|
Quoted:
A question for y'all billy badasses: Ignoring the ron paul part, do you agree or disagree with the rest ofthe bullet points? Sure I do. Put they have squat to do with Pauls statements or Manning, and are just a red herring to try and minimize the outright unamerican, traitorous filth that flows from Pauls mouth at the end of that video. Paul is now on record praising a piece of shit traitor, who intentionally leaked classified material to the enemy because he had a grudge to grind because he was upset he had a penis, as a hero. That shows he is 100% unfit to be Commander in Chief. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A question for y'all billy badasses: Ignoring the ron paul part, do you agree or disagree with the rest ofthe bullet points? Nice... Condescending and confrontational. Great way to start a discussion. U Bradley Manning did not release classified information out of any sort of altruism, or to expose corruption. What is being used as his defense so far? Statements to the effect of "he was a troubled young man and shouldn't have been given access" and he had/ has "gender identity issues". Notice that there has been no mention of his discovery of government corruption and a desire to fight it. There is a difference between a whistleblower and a military member committing a treasonous act. There are processes in place (yes - even within the military) for members to raise concerns about problems. Bradley Manning did not follow any process. Why? Because there was no altruism involved. Bradley Manning essentially threw a temper-tantrum in response to his treatment after failing to follow established rules. Rules he was aware of and made conscious decisions to violate. Bradley Manning could have decided to put his gender-identity issues on hold for the period of time left on his enlistment, depart the service, and and gone about leading his life as he desired. He did not do that - he chose to act in ways that violated the rules. Bradley Manning also chose to release classified information to a source he knew would widely disseminate that information. He worked with classified information. He knew the rules with regards to safe-guarding that information, and knew the potential repercussions for violating those rules. Responsibility. Choices. Consequences. I have zero sympathy for Bradley Manning. The fact that people cannot, or refuse to, see the difference between an actual whistleblower and a person committing a treasonous act, is extremely disturbing. So you agree with me. I do not agree with you. -I don't think Bradley Manning qualifies as a whistleblower as he carelessly copied and distributed hundreds of thousands of classified documents that he could not have screened for "immoral" actions and he did not censor out non pertinent info that could do America harm. I don't agree that he is any kind of hero. Rather he is a lady gaga attention whore. Time will tell if he is a "traitor" in the classic legal sense. At the minimum, he failed to protect classified docs as was his job. I don't give a shit how much "screening" or "censoring" Bradley Manning "might" have done before releasing classified documents. Bradley Manning did not "fail to protect" classified documents - he sent them in direct violation of security procedures. Major difference. |
|
For those open to discussion, I heard a long one on NPR's "To the Point" this morning about the Bradley Manning case.
There is only one reason I am not actively calling him a traitor right now (even though I don't believe his actions were justified). That is because there appears to be all sorts of legal opinions/laws/precedent/etc that is confusing to me, and I have a fault of liking to be accurate in my language, even though my instinct tells me otherwise. |
|
Quoted:
Bradley Manning did not "fail to protect" classified documents - he sent them in direct violation of security procedures. Major difference. Agreed. "Failed to protect" is you left a secret document in your briefcase unattended. That is negligence. What Manning did was outright treason. He collected all the intel on one media for the express purpose of handing that media over to those whose stated intent was to use it to damage the US. Anyone who calls him a hero, or a whistle blower, is either a complete idiot or someone who has an agenda to see this nation weakened. Manning is a hero...... to islamist militants everywhere. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Releasing classified information to the entire world is nothing to even remotely close to be compared to whistle blowing. That is downright treason. What about fast and furious? Apples and Oranges. Fast and Furious was a Law Enforcement operation. Leaking ALL of the fast and Furious documents would never amount to a charge of "Aiding the Enemy" or "Treason." Manning was a soldier serving in a war. His documents were classified to protect sources and methods, so as to safeguard the lives of US Servicemembers. He knew this, yet he leaked the information, anyway. Thus, he was charged with "Aiding the Enemy." Exactly! RP fell quite a few notches in my book. Is there anyone left that wants to lead Americans to greatness again? 
|
|
Quoted: For those open to discussion, I heard a long one on NPR's "To the Point" this morning about the Bradley Manning case. There is only one reason I am not actively calling him a traitor right now (even though I don't believe his actions were justified). That is because there appears to be all sorts of legal opinions/laws/precedent/etc that is confusing to me, and I have a fault of liking to be accurate in my language, even though my instinct tells me otherwise. Would he have had to release design blue prints on the B2 or the USS Ronald Reagan before you'd consider what he did was treason???? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A question for y'all billy badasses:i Ignoring the ron paul part, do you agree or disagree with the rest ofthe bullet points? Nice... Condescending and confrontational. Great way to start a discussion. U
Bradley Manning did not release classified information out of any sort of altruism, or to expose corruption. What is being used as his defense so far? Statements to the effect of "he was a troubled young man and shouldn't have been given access" and he had/ has "gender identity issues". Notice that there has been no mention of his discovery of government corruption and a desire to fight it. There is a difference between a whistleblower and a military member committing a treasonous act. There are processes in place (yes - even within the military) for members to raise concerns about problems. Bradley Manning did not follow any process. Why? Because there was no altruism involved. Bradley Manning essentially threw a temper-tantrum in response to his treatment after failing to follow established rules. Rules he was aware of and made conscious decisions to violate. Bradley Manning could have decided to put his gender-identity issues on hold for the period of time left on his enlistment, depart the service, and and gone about leading his life as he desired. He did not do that - he chose to act in ways that violated the rules. Bradley Manning also chose to release classified information to a source he knew would widely disseminate that information. He worked with classified information. He knew the rules with regards to safe-guarding that information, and knew the potential repercussions for violating those rules. Responsibility. Choices. Consequences. I have zero sympathy for Bradley Manning. The fact that people cannot, or refuse to, see the difference between an actual whistleblower and a person committing a treasonous act, is extremely disturbing. So you agree with me. I do not agree with you. -I don't think Bradley Manning qualifies as a whistleblower as he carelessly copied and distributed hundreds of thousands of classified documents that he could not have screened for "immoral" actions and he did not censor out non pertinent info that could do America harm.
I don't agree that he is any kind of hero. Rather he is a lady gaga attention whore. Time will tell if he is a "traitor" in the classic legal sense. At the minimum, he failed to protect classified docs as was his job. I don't give a shit how much "screening" or "censoring" Bradley Manning "might" have done before releasing classified documents. Bradley Manning did not "fail to protect" classified documents - he sent them in direct violation of security procedures. Major difference. In the first paragraph you quoted there, I said he copied and distributed... As far as screening out things.... A question for discussion: If a soldier sees or has access to classified info pertaining to an atrocity, illegal action, coverup, etc , can he legally be a whistleblower? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
For those open to discussion, I heard a long one on NPR's "To the Point" this morning about the Bradley Manning case. There is only one reason I am not actively calling him a traitor right now (even though I don't believe his actions were justified). That is because there appears to be all sorts of legal opinions/laws/precedent/etc that is confusing to me, and I have a fault of liking to be accurate in my language, even though my instinct tells me otherwise. Would he have had to release design blue prints on the B2 or the USS Ronald Reagan before you'd consider what he did was treason???? I think the term "whistleblower" would apply if he leaked information on individuals in the administration who released said blueprints to the Russians, Chinese, etc. |
|
Quoted:
[ A question for discussion: If a soldier sees or has access to classified info pertaining to an atrocity, illegal action, coverup, etc , can he legally be a whistleblower? Sure, and there are policies, procedures and methods for doing that within the system to protect the integrity of related information that should remain classified. Only if all these avenues have been tried and failed, to include going to members of Congress, should one consider the media as a last resort. Going to an organization whose stated goals is to harm the ability of the US to operate with classified information- aka wikileaks- is never a legitimate option. |
|
Quoted:
A question for discussion: If a soldier sees or has access to classified info pertaining to an atrocity, illegal action, coverup, etc , can he legally be a whistleblower? Sure. That's why he has a chain of command, and access to investigative entities. Any Intelligence personnel will be aware of this, including Manning. But no matter WHAT the content of the classified materiel, to leak it to the public without going through the proper process is a serious violation of the law. In such cases, he will be seen as a "whistleblower" by the far Left and the Libertarians, but the rest of us will see him as a criminal -or worse. Manning knew that his documents would end up in the hands of the enemy. He didn't care. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
For those open to discussion, I heard a long one on NPR's "To the Point" this morning about the Bradley Manning case. There is only one reason I am not actively calling him a traitor right now (even though I don't believe his actions were justified). That is because there appears to be all sorts of legal opinions/laws/precedent/etc that is confusing to me, and I have a fault of likinig to be accurate in my language, even though my instinct tells me otherwise. Would he have had to release design blue prints on the B2 or the USS Ronald Reagan before you'd consider what he did was treason???? It's not a lack of character that is preventing me from calling him that. It is merely ignorance. I am not up to speed on the legal rulings, nor the content he sent. Once, I am caught up, I can make declarative statements. It's just the way I try to operate in my life. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: For those open to discussion, I heard a long one on NPR's "To the Point" this morning about the Bradley Manning case. There is only one reason I am not actively calling him a traitor right now (even though I don't believe his actions were justified). That is because there appears to be all sorts of legal opinions/laws/precedent/etc that is confusing to me, and I have a fault of liking to be accurate in my language, even though my instinct tells me otherwise. Would he have had to release design blue prints on the B2 or the USS Ronald Reagan before you'd consider what he did was treason???? I think the term "whistleblower" would apply if he leaked information on individuals in the administration who released said blueprints to the Russians, Chinese, etc? Yeah, that would be an example of a whistleblower. To all of us who hate the Constitution and Liberty To Ron Paul and his supporters, a whistleblower is someone who gives critical classified information to our enemies.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A question for discussion: If a soldier sees or has access to classified info pertaining to an atrocity, illegal action, coverup, etc , can he legally be a whistleblower? Sure. That's why he has a chain of command, and access to investigative entities. Any Intelligence personnel will be aware of this, including Manning. But no matter WHAT the content of the classified materiel, to leak it to the public without going through the proper process is a serious violation of the law. In such cases, he will be seen as a "whistleblower" by the far Left and the Libertarians, but the rest of us will see him as a criminal -or worse. Manning knew that his documents would end up in the hands of the enemy. He didn't care. That's what I thought would be the case. Legally a traitor or not, he is a pathetic sack of shit who knew better. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
For those open to discussion, I heard a long one on NPR's "To the Point" this morning about the Bradley Manning case. There is only one reason I am not actively calling him a traitor right now (even though I don't believe his actions were justified). That is because there appears to be all sorts of legal opinions/laws/precedent/etc that is confusing to me, and I have a fault of liking to be accurate in my language, even though my instinct tells me otherwise. Would he have had to release design blue prints on the B2 or the USS Ronald Reagan before you'd consider what he did was treason???? I think the term "whistleblower" would apply if he leaked information on individuals in the administration who released said blueprints to the Russians, Chinese, etc? Yeah, that would be an example of a whistleblower. To all of us who hate the Constitution and Liberty To Ron Paul and his supporters, a whistleblower is someone who gives critical classified information to our enemies.
I think RP has proved he can't lead in a Command in Chief capacity. He seems too naive of the world outside the US borders. There are a few sane RP supporters who believe this and would rather see him in a position where he is limited to US domestic economic issues only. A good percentage of his supporters have yet to understand "with great power comes great responsibility." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Releasing classified information to the entire world is nothing to even remotely close to be compared to whistle blowing. That is downright treason. What about fast and furious? What about fast and furious? You just directly tried to equate Manning's activities to whistle blowing, in spite of your attempt to distance yourself from that untenable position in your OP. You just openly stepped on your dick and didn't even notice. |
|
Quoted: In the first part of your paragraph I quoted, yes he copied and distributed. I have an issue with the second part of that statement, highlighted in red.Quoted: In the first paragraph you quoted there, I said he copied and distributed...Quoted: I do not agree with you.Quoted: So you agree with me. Quoted: <snip><snip> -I don't think Bradley Manning qualifies as a whistleblower as he carelessly copied and distributed hundreds of thousands of classified documents that he could not have screened for "immoral" actions and he did not censor out non pertinent info that could do America harm. I don't give a shit how much "screening" or "censoring" Bradley Manning "might" have done before releasing classified documents.I don't agree that he is any kind of hero. Rather he is a lady gaga attention whore. Time will tell if he is a "traitor" in the classic legal sense. At the minimum, he failed to protect classified docs as was his job. Bradley Manning did not "fail to protect" classified documents - he sent them in direct violation of security procedures. Major difference. As far as screening out things.... A question for discussion: If a soldier sees or has access to classified info pertaining to an atrocity, illegal action, coverup, etc , can he legally be a whistleblower? He was not in a position to make a determination about what "non-pertinent info that could do America harm" and should be "censored" out - because he should not have been sending that information to anyone without the proper clearance and need to know. Period. Several others have answered your "question for discussion" better than I would have. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Releasing classified information to the entire world is nothing to even remotely close to be compared to whistle blowing. That is downright treason. What about fast and furious? What about fast and furious? You just directly tried to equate Manning's activities to whistle blowing, in spite of your attempt to distance yourself from that untenable position in your OP. You just openly stepped on your dick and didn't even notice. 
YOU equated. Not me. This is a discussion on ALL whistleblowing. That is why the question was asked. Duh. Stop fixating on my dick. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: In the first part of your paragraph I quoted, yes he copied and distributed. I have an issue with the second part of that statement, highlighted in red.Quoted: In the first paragraph you quoted there, I said he copied and distributed...Quoted: I do not agree with you.Quoted: So you agree with me. Quoted: <snip><snip> -I don't think Bradley Manning qualifies as a whistleblower as he carelessly copied and distributed hundreds of thousands of classified documents that he could not have screened for "immoral" actions and he did not censor out non pertinent info that could do America harm. I don't give a shit how much "screening" or "censoring" Bradley Manning "might" have done before releasing classified documents.I don't agree that he is any kind of hero. Rather he is a lady gaga attention whore. Time will tell if he is a "traitor" in the classic legal sense. At the minimum, he failed to protect classified docs as was his job. Bradley Manning did not "fail to protect" classified documents - he sent them in direct violation of security procedures. Major difference. As far as screening out things.... A question for discussion: If a soldier sees or has access to classified info pertaining to an atrocity, illegal action, coverup, etc , can he legally be a whistleblower? He was not in a position to make a determination about what "non-pertinent info that could do America harm" and should be "censored" out - because he should not have been sending that information to anyone without the proper clearance and need to know. Period. Several others have answered your "question for discussion" better than I would have. They live in fucking la la land where they think everybody loves us and nobody has ill intentions toward our country. Fucking naive as fuck. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Releasing classified information to the entire world is nothing to even remotely close to be compared to whistle blowing. That is downright treason. What about fast and furious? What about fast and furious? You just directly tried to equate Manning's activities to whistle blowing, in spite of your attempt to distance yourself from that untenable position in your OP. You just openly stepped on your dick and didn't even notice.
YOU equated. Not me. This is a discussion on ALL whistleblowing. That is why the question was asked. Duh. Stop fixating on my dick. Ok, what was your purpose in bringing up Fast and Furious in direct reference to AIV's comment about Manning. Please try to be precise. |
|
Quoted:
You'll note that attention whores seem never to have learned to distinguish themselves by deeds: They only learned to set themselves apart by being "different." In their minds, "unique" is special and therefore superior. It's a twisted mindset, but very common among frustrated underachievers. You see them often here. They include, but aren't limited to:
...just to name a few. http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2011/02/08/1297207367-the_more_you_know2.jpg Actually, I've noticed just as many (if not more) RP threads started by Paul bashers as Paul supporters. |
|
Quoted:
Here are my thoughts: -Whistleblowers are useful in a free market. -Whistleblowers should be protected. -It is morally right to blow the whistle on immoral or illegal actions -It is good (but not always convenient) to have a guy/site like Julian Asange/wikileaks -I don't think Bradley Manning qualifies as a whistleblower as he carelessly copied and distributed hundreds of thousands of classified documents that he could not have screened for "immoral" actions and he did not censor out non pertinent info that could do America harm. I don't agree that he is any kind of hero. Rather he is a lady gaga attention whore. Time will tell if he is a "traitor" in the classic legal sense. At the minimum, he failed to protect classified docs as was his job. Side note: _____________________________________________ In regard to Ron Paul (because you all will bring it up), -I don't agree with him on this issue. -No candidate is perfect or agreed with 100%. -He is still leaps and bounds above all other candidates. -I will vote for him because he believes in YOUR freedom. -Trading liberty for perceived security is bullshit. As long as you clarified that part..I agree.. Look at the ATF Whistleblowers from F&F..some of those guys are getting royally screwed because they did the right thing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You'll note that attention whores seem never to have learned to distinguish themselves by deeds: They only learned to set themselves apart by being "different." In their minds, "unique" is special and therefore superior. It's a twisted mindset, but very common among frustrated underachievers. You see them often here. They include, but aren't limited to:
...just to name a few. http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2011/02/08/1297207367-the_more_you_know2.jpg Actually, I've noticed just as many (if not more) RP threads started by Paul bashers as Paul supporters. What does that have to do with cleaving to the unconventional as a personality crutch? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You'll note that attention whores seem never to have learned to distinguish themselves by deeds: They only learned to set themselves apart by being "different." In their minds, "unique" is special and therefore superior. It's a twisted mindset, but very common among frustrated underachievers. You see them often here. They include, but aren't limited to:
...just to name a few. http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2011/02/08/1297207367-the_more_you_know2.jpg Actually, I've noticed just as many (if not more) RP threads started by Paul bashers as Paul supporters. What does that have to do with cleaving to the unconventional as a personality crutch? I really don't give enough a fuck about this to get into a big internet fight about it. Suffice to say, I find RPDS syndrome just as funny as Paul-botism. In fact, I find the two groups of people to be remarkably similar in temperment and logic. |