Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookGOVERNMENT:
Already, Titus faces difficult first vote
She must cast ballot for chairman of panel she wants to join
SUSAN WALSH / ASSOCIATED PRESS
The House of Representatives’ freshman class gathers on Monday on the Capitol steps. With several races still undecided, there are 52 freshmen — 33 Democrats, 19 Republicans.
Tue, Nov 18, 2008 (2 a.m.)
Sun Archives
- Titus goes to Washington (11-17-2008)
- Titus promises an agenda for Nevada (11-8-2008)
Sun Topics
Beyond the Sun
Washington — Even before she arrived for her freshman class photo Monday morning, Nevada’s newest congresswoman-elect found herself in the middle of a political battle.
Two titans of the Democratic Party in the House, Rep. Henry Waxman of California and Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, are vying to head the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee.
They both want Dina Titus’ vote.
Waxman called her first, seeking her support last week.
Within no time, Dingell, who now leads the committee and is trying to keep his job, dialed her up with his pitch.
It’s a tough position for any freshman in Washington, having to make a highly political decision after having just arrived for orientation week.
She doesn’t even have an office yet. Or a staff. Or a house.
But Titus’ predicament comes with an additional twist: She wants a seat on the committee.
Not only must she choose which lawmaker should be chairman, she might want to pick the winning one, too, if she hopes to get a place on his panel.
Settling into a chair in the lobby of her hotel during a break Monday, Titus shrugged at the task before her.
She said she would look at the two men’s records before making her decision. She did not tell them of her own interest in the panel, believing that was inappropriate.
The veteran state senator, who led the Democrats in her chamber in Carson City before winning the congressional seat this month, never expected Washington politics to be easy.
“It was just interesting it happened that fast,” Titus said.
Welcome to Washington. This is transition week here, as those who won the election arrive for orientation, while the rest are back in town for a lame-duck session.
Titus defeated Republican Rep. Jon Porter, a three-term lawmaker, in a hard-fought campaign that has left some feelings still frayed.
(Titus says Porter still has not called to congratulate her, despite some very public complaints. Porter’s camp has said that the congressman left her a message on election night.)
Titus is among 52 freshmen (33 Democrats, 19 Republicans, with several races still undecided) entering Congress in January after having won seats in the second consecutive Democratic electoral wave.
The group lined up for a class photo Monday morning, then learned how to climb into hazmat suits and toured the capital complex.
Titus sees a home for herself as a member of the Women’s Caucus, the Western Caucus and one of the energy caucuses. She also will be among a few lawmakers in the Greek Caucus, a nod to her heritage.
Titus also said she is considering making a run for freshman class representative, but hasn’t yet decided.
But mostly, she said, she is focusing on service to constituents back in Nevada. To that end, she hired Jay Gersma, who ran her campaign, as chief of staff in Washington, and is assembling her Nevada team.
“You’re better off not getting so caught up in the Washington political scene,” she said. “I’m sure I’ll be going home a lot on weekends.”
The race for the Energy Committee’s chairmanship has been gripping Washington as the two powerful lawmakers contend for the post this week.
Although the vote will be by secret ballot, the political ramifications can be big.
Dingell has led the committee for years, but his support for Detroit automakers in his home state has led to clashes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who in 2006 established a separate committee to deal specifically with climate change.
Waxman’s challenge for the gavel comes as President-elect Barack Obama has made energy policy a top priority.
For Titus, winning a seat on the Energy committee would be unlikely as a freshman, as the top-tier positions are usually reserved for those with more seniority.
But when Republican Sen. John Ensign was first elected to the House in 1994, ousting a Democratic incumbent, he was awarded a coveted seat on the similarly top-tier Ways and Means Committee — something Porter and Nevada Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley didn’t earn until they had each served several terms.
Titus may be similarly rewarded by Democratic leadership for having toppled Porter. Plus, the party may want to provide her a prestigious slot so she will be well-positioned for reelection in two years in what is likely to again be a tough race.
However, if Titus is not chosen for the Energy panel, she said, she would seek assignment to other committees — Transportation, Education and Labor, and possibly Veterans Affairs.
“I’m going to make the best of what I get,” she said.
Late Monday, after dinner in the Capitol, the freshmen were planning a trip to the House floor. She expects that’s when the weight of her new job “kind of sinks in.”
As she stood to leave the hotel lobby, in her sharp brown tweed suit and sleek black high heels, another freshman who had been standing nearby asked if he could have a word with Titus.
In private.
He wanted to discuss her vote for chairman of the Energy committee.
As the sun set on the first day of orientation, the work in Washington was beginning.
Discussion: 62 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- MGM Mirage cancels CityCenter condo project
- Four arrested after two kidnapping victims rescued
- District dozen hit jackpot with overtime pay
- House renews probe of U.S. attorney firings
- Analysis: Kruger’s roots run deep in Las Vegas
- Mother in police shooting case charged with abuse
- Rough economy produces silence at Daytona
- Man held in attempted sex assault in Henderson desert
- Las Vegas Sands denies report of deal for land
- Fugitive police officer arrested in Las Vegas
Blogs
Sports: UNLV
The Mtn. will air hour-long Tark show Saturday
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Ensign says Dems blew it on Burris, says his recount was different than Coleman's
Neighborhood group lambastes proposed City Hall (1 Comment)
Now and Then
So this is what a squeaky wheel feels like
CES 2009
Who said nerds don't know how to party?
Wranglers Roundup
Two more added to All Star roster
Culture and Entertainment
CES, porn expo sharing the Vegas stage (1 Comment)
Sports: UNLV
Cruz leaving Rebels soccer team for Major League Soccer (UPDATED) (6 Comments)
Calendar
Opportunity Boulevard Career Fair at Green Valley Ranch
(12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Green Valley Ranch)
- The Dennis Bono Show at Sam's Town (2 p.m. to 4 p.m.)
- Fallen Vegas at the House of Blues (9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Don McMillian at the Harrah's Improv (10:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Hokes Medical Arts at the Reed Whipple Cultural Center (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.)
-
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Vote Waxman!
These cute stories about Titus are very sad.
She is going to be a tiny fish in big, big pond.
It will take years for her to have any meaningful assignment on any committee.
In this next session her vote will be rarely needed.
She talks about generating an ageneda for Nevada like people in DC will actually listen to her.
All she can do is carrying the bags around of the higher ups.
But if Titus votes for Waxman then the energy committee won't be a subsidiary of the Detroit auto industry anymore. Can American afford to risk that much change?
Nance, four problems with your theory:
1. At least Titus, unlike her predecessor, won't be carrying the bags for leaders who crookedly filled them with our money.
2. Most beginning members of the House tend to be minor figures.
3. A junior member who got some help from the Senate majority leader who is from her state and is very smart and capable, as Titus is, has a better chance of getting people to listen than, say, a hateful little man who just jumps when told to do so.
4. You might recall a freshman congressman named John Ensign who was immediately put on Ways and Means. If someone of Ensign's abilities can do that well that fast, Titus has a chance of doing some meaningful things, whatever committee she is on.
Hey Jim, does her vote count less because she's new? Should pol's stay in office indefinately because they have "more power"? Is it sad because she's a democrat, a female, a "texan", a "taxan", or because she doesn't jibe with your extreme right-wing political leanings?
Wow.......according to Micheal she is going to have A BIG BIG impact on Congress.......
LOL...........
OK....you set the standard.......lets see if she gets anywhere near something like Ensign got.
You say she is 100x better than Ensign....lets see want committee she gets on.
Obviously, she will not get near Ways and Means so she already will do less than Ensign. I guess that your statement is automatically a false statement.
I have never seen someone intentionally try to be as dumb as this.
Jfnance32, you need to reread what Mr. Green said. It is a few comments up, and anyone with basic reading comprehension skills can understand it.
That might exclude you, though.
You are the one that can not read.
He said that Titus will have more skill than Ensign.
Ensign got a Ways and Means assignment in his freshman year.
I seriously doubt that the almighty Titus will get a top committee assignment nor have any meaningful influence in the next 2 years.
She will be a big nobody in DC.
"You are the one that can not read. He said that Titus will have more skill than Ensign."
No, the difference is that I can read AND COMPREHEND. He did NOT say that Titus has more skill than Ensign. He compared her favorably with Porter... aka "a hateful little man who just jumps when told to do so." Then, he complimented her abilities and said she stands a good chance of accomplishing great things, regardless of committee.
You keep intenionally jumping to conclusions that were not stated. "You say she is 100x better than Ensign" He did not say this. You are intentionally misstating his statements.
Why the intentional density?
Oh, there is a guy who was in the Senate for four years, I was an Illinois resident and voted for a guy with an unusual first name. So let me think, he didn't think being new was a reason not to act in the mold of Abe Lincoln and others who had relatively little experience and who didn't have extreme brain sludge. Go Dana! Or as in YOU GO GIRL!
Mr. Nance.
Mr. Green said:
1. She's not carrying the bags of a corrupt leadership.
2. She may be a minor figure - that's the way it is.
3. She has the support of the Senate Majority Leader and that's a good thing.
4. She may be able to have a meaningful impact - as other newcomers have in the past.
I don't see anywhere he said she will do BIG BIG things. Didn't see anything about being 100 times better than Ensign.
At least argue the facts. Don't make up things the man didn't say and then argue that.
Here Green says that Titus is better than Ensign:
"If someone of Ensign's abilities can do that well that fast, Titus has a chance of doing some meaningful things"
Green is saying that Ensign has poor abilities and got the best committee assignment possibile and that Titus with her superior abilities can do just as well.
I would like to thank those who have commented about Nance's misreading of my post. But, let's be fair. If he didn't misread them, he'd have no choice but to accept that he's wrong. Republicans don't do that very well.
It is one thing to intentionally mislead when no one else has a reference, but we can all see, read and comprehend Mr. Green's words, jfnance32. Pathetic 'spin' doesn't work when we all have easy access to the source.
To continue this "He said X!" when he actually said Y charade is embarassing.
If this is not a dig at Engisn then you can not read:
"If someone of Ensign's abilities can do that well that fast"
Um, I don't know who this "Engisn" is you're talking about.
His entire quote is:
"If someone of Ensign's abilities can do that well that fast, Titus has a chance of doing some meaningful things"
That's complementing Ensign and Titus' abilities. I know in your weird, paranoid world there's no wiggle room between "the WORST" and "the BEST," but out here in reality, someone can be "good" and someone else can be "better than good." That's not a "dig" or a "slam" or anything else negative.
Have you ever compared Mark Spitz and Michael Phelps? Saying "Michael Phelps is a better swimmer than Mark Spitz" is NOT saying that Mark Spitz is a poor swimmer. They have both achieved excellence in swimming. One just happens to hold more metals than the other.
Or it's like saying "the Corvette Z07 is slower than the ZR1." That's factually true. Your spin on this would be yelping that the Z07 is not a slow car. We know. That was never asserted.
Can you begin to comprehend a little nuance? Or am I asking for too much?
Thanks for agreeing with me that Green is saying that Titus has better skills than Ensign.
So if she has better skills then she should equal or do better than Ensign.
If she does not get a top assignmenet like Ways and Means (LOL) then she is performing below Green's expectation of her.
I doubt that she will get any top committee assignment nor will she have any major influence in the next 2 years.
She will be a tiny fish in a very big pond.
Poor, pathetic jfnance32.
"Green is saying that Ensign has poor abilities and got the best committee assignment possibile and that Titus with her superior abilities can do just as well."
"Green is saying that Titus has better skills than Ensign."
You claimed there was a qualitative evaluation of Ensign's abilities as "poor" and was a "dig." Now you're backtracking. All the spin in the world won't keep you from being wrong.
I am not chaning my tune.....I still say that Green is throwing a dig at Ensign and making fun of his skill.
Can you point out where I rescinded that statement?
It you that has changed your tune.
You said: "He did NOT say that Titus has more skill than Ensign"
Now you are saying: "but out here in reality, someone can be "good" and someone else can be "better than good."
LOL.......so which is it?
Is Green saying Titus has more skill than Ensign or not?
Make up your mind!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, get a job! What will be will be! Titus will likely be unspectacular but adequate. Go Girl!
Pro-Titus bumper sticker: "Titus - Unspectacular but adequate"
"Green is saying that Ensign has poor abilities and got the best committee assignment possibile and that Titus with her superior abilities can do just as well."
Suddenly turned into...
"Green is saying that Titus has better skills than Ensign."
Yes, that's backtracking. Changing your tune. Couching your rhetoric. SPINNING.
"Is Green saying Titus has more skill than Ensign or not?"
He, nor I, made any kind of quantitative evaluation of the level of skill. Let's go back to what he said, "If someone of Ensign's abilities can do that well that fast, Titus has a chance of doing some meaningful things, whatever committee she is on."
He made a few points here.
First, Ensign has abilities which enabled him to do very well, very quickly. To us out here in reality, that's a compliment.
Second, Titus also has abilities which give her "a chance" of doing well.
There's no qualitative or quantitative distinction there. You're reading too much into simple, plain language. If you want to whine and moan about his categorization of Porter as, "a hateful little man who just jumps when told to do so," then you would have a point.
Furthermore, if Mr. Green had intended to state Mrs. Titus' abilities are FAR BETTER than Mr. Ensign's, he would have not used the phrase "a chance."
Right now, you've got tons of outrage over an imagined slight.
So touchy!
Talk about back tracking.......
"He, nor I, made any kind of quantitative evaluation of the level of skill."
You post this long, long argument saying that Green was saying that Titus had better skills than Ensign. You remember that one where you go on and on about cars and swimmers. How both can be good cars but one car can still be better than the other car. You know....the one where you talk about reality. You said, "here in reality, someone can be "good" and someone else can be "better than good." "
Oppppss........now you want to take that back.
I guess you are droping that now.
You should spend less time arguing with yourself.
"You post this long, long argument saying that Green was saying that Titus had better skills than Ensign."
Please quote me. Don't take my words out of context, don't reinterpret my simple language, please directly quote me saying Titus had better skills than Ensign.
You can't. That's what's so funny. You spend so much time on this website misinterpreting really simple language and get into large discussions where no one agrees with you. Why not just accept the simple language?
Instead, you insist people said things they clearly did not. It's your own fantasy world, filled with imaginary slights and imaginary words. I've seen you do this before, in fact you've done it to me before and were exposed as a liar, though you'd never admit it.
I can't help that you are touchy and so determined to be offended. I can't help that your paranoia seeps into your every post.
To continue this "He said X!" when he actually said Y charade is embarrassing. Just admit you were wrong.
You have trouble reading your writings.
The below is your posting. It says over and over and over that two entities can be both good and but one is better than the other.
I guess the "one is better than the other" was just you doing a blah...blah...blah.....and was not material to any of the discussions.
I accept that you sometimes write out crap that has no meaing.
Here is your blah-blah crap that according to you has nothing to with any point that you were trying to make.
Ksand99: "out here in reality, someone can be "good" and someone else can be "better than good." That's not a "dig" or a "slam" or anything else negative. Have you ever compared Mark Spitz and Michael Phelps? Saying "Michael Phelps is a better swimmer than Mark Spitz" is NOT saying that Mark Spitz is a poor swimmer. They have both achieved excellence in swimming. One just happens to hold more metals than the other."
I wonder....I wonder....I just wonder what point you trying to make with "Saying "Michael Phelps is a better swimmer than Mark Spitz" is NOT saying that Mark Spitz is a poor swimmer"
.........hmmmmmmm just perhaps you saying that Green meant that both Ensign and Titus have good skills but Titus has better skills.
Nope....can not be that........it was just you making worthless comments about nothing at all.....LOL
Another long-winded intentional misinterpretation of simple language.
Again I challenge you: Please quote me. Don't take my words out of context, don't reinterpret my simple language, please directly quote me saying Titus had better skills than Ensign.
Otherwise, you're screaming into the wind, jfnance32.
Ksand99: "out here in reality, someone can be "good" and someone else can be "better than good." That's not a "dig" or a "slam" or anything else negative. Have you ever compared Mark Spitz and Michael Phelps? Saying "Michael Phelps is a better swimmer than Mark Spitz" is NOT saying that Mark Spitz is a poor swimmer. They have both achieved excellence in swimming. One just happens to hold more metals than the other."
What Ksand99 was saying absoultely nothing about anything.
What point was making?
He was making no point.
Nope...he did not say that one was better than the other.
Nope...do not believe eyes. They are lying to you.
He was blah....blah...blah...he was drunk....he did not know what he was writing.
He was out of his mind.....he was delirous.....he is claiming that a ghost wrote all those words.
What point was he trying to make?
I have no clue.......one would think he was saying that Green was saying that both Titus and Ensign has good skills but one has better skills.
Nope...ksand99....did not mean anything at all when he wrote that....
Nope........no meaning at ...
What point.....no point all...
He was making no point.....
He was just blah....blah...blah...about nothing at all.
Still desperately trying to reinterpret my words?
Still can't quote me?
You're too predictable, jfnance32.
Please, continue to tell me what I said. This is fascinating.
LOL.......I agree with you ksand99....you were making no point in your babbling below.
You were just typing out nonsense about nothing, like you usually do.
Ksand99: "out here in reality, someone can be "good" and someone else can be "better than good." That's not a "dig" or a "slam" or anything else negative. Have you ever compared Mark Spitz and Michael Phelps? Saying "Michael Phelps is a better swimmer than Mark Spitz" is NOT saying that Mark Spitz is a poor swimmer. They have both achieved excellence in swimming. One just happens to hold more metals than the other."
Hahaha! Ksand is learning what we already know. When Nance has lost, he resorts to making stuff up.
Don't waste your time. Like today, Nance will just post the same thing, over and over, in a vain attempt to wear you down. It's hilarious to watch.
In case you haven't been clued in, he's a mindreader, capable of gleaning what you "meant" when you make a statement. He'll make two or three leaps of logic and by then, your words become his words and he's arguing himself.
Don't bother asking for a quote, either. He's intent on insisting you said things you clearly did not.
Nance, for the brain dead, the quote you're referring to is about portraying a statement as a "dig." Do you really not understand it?
Seems like everyone except Nance realized he was mis-stating the facts. He doesn't get it and so it makes no sense to continue to engage him. We've read what he said, it's up there in print so we should all stop wasting our time on him. He seems to think having the last word will make him right so let him think it. From now on I will ignore any post by Nance.
Mr. Green, you made good points. I hope Dina does well.
theBS is saying this is not a dig at Ensign: "If someone of Ensign's abilities can do that well that fast,"
That says a lot about the theBS.
How is it a dig, Nance? Explain your reasoning.
And for the last time, if you have to put words into peoples' mouths, you've already lost the argument.
I do not have to explain that is a dig.
It is a dig as plain as the nose is your face.
If you refuse to see it as a dig then that reveals a lot about how you think.
You made the assertion that it is a dig.
Now you say it may not be a dig? You're not sure?
I am glad you agree it is not a dig.
They really should put some kind of cap on these things - like maybe allowing you to comment 4 times on one item! Go get a job, go out and talk to real humans! (hey, i enjoy this stuff as well)
I am glad that you say it is not a dig.
It reveals a lot about you and your honesty.
You cannot even explain how it is a dig, jfnance32.
If you could explain your reasoning, maybe someone would agree with you.
As it is, you are the only person to comment thus far who thinks it is negative.
As he said, you made the statement that it was a dig. When asked to prove it, to explain yourself, you could not. I believe you don't think it's a dig, either. You just refuse to admit you are wrong.
"Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of stupidity" - Michel de Montaigne
Hey, nance is the super genius that said my assertion that Sarah Palin needs an encyclopedia was proof that I hated her.
He's either joking or he denies his own hatred so much that he sees it in almost everybody else. Since it isn't my experience that he has a sense of humor beyond sarcasm and cynicism, I'm going with the projection theory.
Here are examples of love postings by the love filled johneeeeeevegas:
"Mostly just conservative scum like you"
"You're boycott idea is stupid with a capitol F!"
"What a clown this woman is!"
"Since then I have espoused the elimination of Ralph Nader"
Just all warm, fuzzy and positive stuff comes from the hand of johneeeeeeeeeeevegas.
Thanks for making me smile nance. I love it that it pisses you off so much.
I don't hate Sarah, and she needs an encyclopedia! LOL!
Enjoy your hateful day!
Yes, you have a excellent understanding of hate...since clearly shown you dish it out....
If there is one thing I can't stand its academics in politics. Ugh...
Mike,Gmag,Jfinance,Ksand...
The only people who accomplish anything in the House are the people who are willing to sell their soul and all their principles and do whatever is necessary to get pork projects into the hands of their bosses and their donors.
The only people to make it that far in politics are the ones who are capable of compromising what is right with what enriches someone else.
If I was ever going to run for politics the only thing I'd want is a seat in the Senate. At least in the Senate one person can make enough difference to cause trouble"and a small chance of actually doing what is right.
In the house you are a pawn (Republican or Democrat) who has to wait their turn before calling the shots. Don't obey, you stay a nobody.
"since clearly shown you dish it out"
You see everything you disagree with as hateful or fraudulent or both. You're boring Jim. Learn to be wrong occasionally.
You are in self-denial...hateful Johnevegas.
"You are in self-denial...hateful Johnevegas."
You know nothing about psychology or spirituality and aren't qualified to make that statement. You just see yourself and your own hatred everywhere Jim and think it's all about everyone but you.
For the sixth time, your Shadow Jim? How do you work on it? Still no answer? Do you even know what I'm asking?
I agree you are an "expert" in hate.
Hmmm. Raise your hand if you, in the course of posting on the Sun's website, stated that the grand majority of African-Americans hate Israel.
No? No takers?
Oh, that's right: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep...
Nance, raise your hand.
Now, tell us again about hate. You seem to know alot about it.
"I agree you are an "expert" in hate."
Of course you do. It suits your prejudice perfectly.
Also, I said you weren't qualified. You changed that into me being an expert. This will be at least the second time today that someone has pointed out that you change what other people say.
Actually I don't know if I would call myself an expert. But whatever 12 years of study and practice gets a person, I have that. I think you me called a "fake buddahist". That's a compliment coming from you. I accept that, but sadly for me, you are still not qualified to judge.
In all truthfulness, I'm not a Buddhist at all. The practices are too dry for me, though I do understand the symbology pretty well. I'm actually more of a Hindu than a Buddhist. I relate to all the body based practices better. I like all the Yoga and chanting and such. Plus they have a God for every human condition. Even your's nance!
"...the grand majority of African-Americans hate Israel"
You know, I can't honestly say I've ever had a thought like that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most of my black friends have never even uttered the word "Israel", let alone expressed any hatred.
But hey, that's how projection works. We see our disowned stuff elsewhere. The notion that it's "the grand majority of African-Americans" just makes it an even more perfect symbol of the Shadow.
You have deemed yourself as qualifed......LOL......
Did you give yourself a diploma or a certification? LOL......
As for blacks not liking jews .....I doubt they have much love for Israel for it is ran by Jews.....here is a poll that says over 70% of blacks are either somewhat anti-Semitic or anti-Semitic.
http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/2002/as...
If anybody has a Shadow....it is person that says hateful thitngs but it is in total denial and in fact thinks he is some saint that never says any hateful words.
You need to look yourself in the mirror and fix that first before going around preaching to others.
I doubt you are actually qualified (like a degree or a certification) in anything.
nance - "If anybody has a Shadow....it is person that says hateful thitngs but it is in total denial and in fact thinks he is some saint that never says any hateful words."
Really good Jim! Except everybody has one and everybody has reactions.
You might want to start working with that realization by saying that phrase out loud several times while imagining that it might have something to do with you. Let me know when you do this and I'll tell you the next step.
"I doubt you are actually qualified (like a degree or a certification) in anything."
I have whatever knowledge and experience one gets from 12 years of practice. They do not hand out diplomas to Mystery Scholars. Mystery Scholars are their own diplomas.
I use this forum as a way to work on myself Jim. I see my own reactions to people and work those reactions on myself. I enjoy the process very much, because I learn so much from it.
It doesn't bother me that you don't respect me. I'm not hear looking for that anyway. It doesn't bother me that you call me names "fake buddahist" or whatever. I just get all new material to work. It's like a gift, mostly because you do it from being angry or inflated. Then I get to see my own anger and inflation. See how that works? Cool huh?
Anyway, thanks for playing along. You are always someone to count on for that.
nance - "Titus - Unspectacular but adequate"
Hey, like Ensign! Go figure?
You know Jim, if you worked your own shadow, you might be able to understand why all these people complain about you restating what they said.
Admitting a loss would be really really good for your Soul. And honestly, nobody cares about your losing but your Ego.
Mystery Scholar..........oh boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Mystery Scholar..........oh boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Wow! You react to everything!
What's a mystery scholar Jim?
Put that on your resume..........LOL
Hi, my name, is Johneeee.....I am a Mystery Scholar and a self-anointed one at that, because I have 12 years experience in lots of BS and nonsense where people just makeup stuff out of their axx....I declared myself a Mystery Scholar....
It is true....I have a diploma on my wall...Mystery Scholar...it is accepted by other people that make up crap and called it a field of study. Nope....no real school of religion or philsophy has ever formally reconized by self-anointed degree or even my so call field of study....I am crossing my fingers that they see that I am neck deep in BS and will give me a real one....
What's a mystery scholar Jim?
There is no formal definiton of mystery scholar for there is no field of study in the US that formally reconizes "mystery" as field of study.
Msytery scholar is a made up term. It can mean many things to many people. Some companies will allow one to study "mystery" and will even you sell one a "diploma" as a scholar of mystery.
I am sure that there many people call themselves mystery scholar. Some will read books on spirituality, religion and occult and then declare themselves scholars of mystery. Others will light candles, smoke some dope and will deem themselves as scholars of mystery.
Most people on the street probably will consider other people that declare themselves as scholars of mystery to be flakes.
Really impressive Jim! I don't know what you just did to come up with that response, but I'm truly overwhelmed by how accurate it is.
"Most people on the street probably will consider other people that declare themselves as scholars of mystery to be flakes."
I did. I had no respect for it at all. I went kicking and screaming, and only ever agreed because somebody who loved me made me a deal I could not refuse. I am forever grateful.
I understand that you see me as hateful. Sometimes I might be. But being spiritual and being nice are not the same thing. Ask any Hindu!
It's like this Jim. I feel free to be mean and condescending to you, because that is what I see you do as well. But, I also walk away from the computer knowing that I have juice on whatever the interchange was about and that I will learn something if I go and work with it. So I do.
I might do some myth work, or dream work, or some movement, or whatever. It doesn't matter. They all lead to the same place.
There are many many famous mystery scholars in the world. They make the movies you love and write the songs you listen to. The good ones that wont leave your head for some reason.
In fact, in recent years there was one movie in particular that resonated so closely to that of the mystery school it was astonishing. It essentially laid out the entire experience of awakening to the mysteries. It was an instant classic and I'm nearly certain you saw it and loved it. Can you name it?