Win a copy of Building Blockchain Apps this week in the Cloud/Virtualization forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Knute Snortum
  • Bear Bibeault
Sheriffs:
  • Devaka Cooray
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Carey Brown
  • salvin francis
Bartenders:
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
  • Frits Walraven

Bush attack ads

 
author and iconoclast
Posts: 24203
43
Mac OS X Eclipse IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here's an article from the AP wire about Bush's new campaign attack ads.
What I find interesting, a few paragraphs into the article, is that apparently one of the ads features the very section from the recent State of the Union address that I complained about in another thread in this forum. What's interesting is that the author of this piece agreees with me that this section of that speech was about electioneering; the author takes it to imply that the voter can either vote for Bush, or doom America to destruction on the apathetic Dems' watch. Apparently Bush's people felt so too, or the ad wouldn't have been made.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
the voter can either vote for Bush, or doom America to destruction on the apathetic Dems' watch.
I guess that's one way to frame it.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1340
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The Greens should try that line!
"Vote Green, or doom America to a life on boats and living in the hills"
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
What's interesting is that the author of this piece agreees with me that this section of that [State of the Union] speech was about electioneering;
Okay, I may be a bit dopy because of lack of sleep, but I read that article three times, and never once did the authors mention the State of the Union speech. In fact, the only thing the authors did was present the text of the advertisements and categorize them as negative. They did mention the constant barrage of Kerry ads criticizing Bush during the primary, but nowhere did they mention the State of the Union.
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Its kind of frightening quite how much political power can be won or lost through the amount of money that is spent on TV advertising. Its hard to see how it could be stopped - at the moment it appears that the candidate with the most money has a huge advantage.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
That's the sad fact of US politics, the press ultimately decides who becomes president (or at least they try, their chosen monkey lost out during the last one when they tried to make it extra interesting by falsifying the election results (or trying to)).
One way to cure it is to give each party a fixed budget to spend, and government supplied airtime on TV and radio (to prevent stations from sabotaging one party over another by charging lower prices to their favoured candidate).
Make it illegal to spend anything over that, so all parties have exactly the same budget.
Next make it absolutely illegal (on penalty of being banned from the elections) to launch personal attacks on opponents.
Such attacks here cost one party leader his life here in the runups to the 2002 elections when someone took the constant attacks on that person as a call to murder him...
 
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Posts: 24203
43
Mac OS X Eclipse IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

Okay, I may be a bit dopy because of lack of sleep, but I read that article three times, and never once did the authors mention the State of the Union speech.


The Bush quote in the second paragraph about "We have a choice" is directly lifted from the State of the Union address. It's the specific quote that set off my "State of the Union" rant from a few weeks back. You surely remember that thread -- it ran to several hundred posts and there was lots of vitriol all around.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The crying about "Bush ATTACK ads" is silly. The Demonrats have been attacking Bush for quite awhile now. Yet start crying when something gets said about them. Even calling them attack ads is silly. They do not even come close to stooping to the depths that the Dems have.
So for all you whining about attack ads. Here is tissue.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The state of the Union address:
"We can go forward with confidence and resolve - or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us."
The ad:
"We can go forward with confidence, resolve and hope, - or we can turn back to the dangerous illusions that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat."
The difference is essentially the word "hope" in the ad. Which makes me wonder, -- who edits Bush's ads? I mean, how can one go forward with confidence and hope?
 
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Posts: 24203
43
Mac OS X Eclipse IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Which makes me wonder, -- who edits Bush's ads?


Well, speechwriters, I guess, and Karl Rove.
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
That's the sad fact of US politics, the press ultimately decides who becomes president (or at least they try, their chosen monkey lost out during the last one when they tried to make it extra interesting by falsifying the election results (or trying to)).
One way to cure it is to give each party a fixed budget to spend, and government supplied airtime on TV and radio (to prevent stations from sabotaging one party over another by charging lower prices to their favoured candidate).
Make it illegal to spend anything over that, so all parties have exactly the same budget.


I'd like to see something like that, but if that happened what would stop one party from splitting into a series of allied smaller parties ie the Texan Republicans, the Florida Republicans etc each spending their limit but acting in government as one party. Its a tricky one. Maybe ban TV and Radio adverts for political parties and force them to gain public support through things like public speaches etc. Only problem with that is that by the end of the presidential elections, both candidates would be too knackered to run the country.....
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The Bush quote in the second paragraph about "We have a choice" is directly lifted from the State of the Union address.
I recognize the quote. I don't think it's word for word from the State of the Union, but it's certainly similar in content. However, the author doesn't make any sort of reference to the State of the Union address. Of course, this guy changes his article every time I read it. When I last read it, it said "it did not mention Kerry by name". Now it calls it a "veiled reference to Kerry." Neither of these match your assertion that it was a slam on Clinton.
Anyway, interpret it however you want. Kerry started the mudslinging, so whatever happens is just business as usual in the Beltway.
Joe
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
the press ultimately decides who becomes president
A common misconception, but if it were true, Jimmy Carter would have never been elected.
Joe
 
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Posts: 24203
43
Mac OS X Eclipse IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Not sure anybody's understanding why I've brought this up.
When I started that earlier thread, I complained about (among other things) this obviously election-related quote as being inappropriate for the SOTU address. My recollection was that I was told that this quote had nothing to do with electioneering, and it wasn't a swipe at the Democrats, and it was all in my head. I was just pointing out that now, this same quote is being used by Bush in exactly the way in which I originally interpreted it, and this reporter is just saying what is by now obvious (although he doesn't seem to know where the quote came from.)
I am not complaining about attack ads at all; frankly, I think this is probably very mild compared to what will come later. I'm not one of these campaign finance reform guys -- human nature being what it is, these guys will find loopholes in any legislation designed to change how politics is done. I'm just feeling slightly vindicated and I wanted to share that with you all.
Re: stories being rewritten. Don't you hate that? I wish they'd do some kind of versioning so you could link to the text of a story as it was at one specific time.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yeah, and I still don't think it's anything other than Bush saying he is dealing with the terrorists, and that he's the best person to continue that fight. I'd rather not rehash that whole mess, thank you.
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe King:
Its kind of frightening quite how much political power can be won or lost through the amount of money that is spent on TV advertising. .



Its much more frightening how much more political power is won and lost on a daily basis on all levels of local and federal government due not to bought advertising which is very limited, but to the virtually unlimited bias and slant of the liberal news media who have the capacity to distort every single event and action of politicians who do not share their liberal agenda.
It is a known fact that over 75% of journalists classify themselves as liberal. I welcome any alternative that allows alternative viewpoints to be expressed to counter their bias without infringing on anyone's rights. Paid advertising allows that.


Its hard to see how it could be stopped - at the moment it appears that the candidate with the most money has a huge advantage.


I am not sure how huge the advantage is. If you assume its simply a pure propaganda battle and that voters can't sift through the claims of the advertising to discover what is false, half true, or misleading, of course then its more of an advantage. But there are numerous examples at local and national level of politicians who have outspent their opponents yet still lost.
It also is an infringement on liberty restrict how people spend their money.
If I earned the money, and I feel its important for my county that my candidate win, then I should not be restricted in what I contribute to his campaign. A moot issue I know, but those who give lip service to what liberty is and how importat liberty is, always find examples where they think liberty is not important...
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
[QB]The state of the Union address:
"We can go forward with confidence and resolve - or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us."
The ad:
"We can go forward with confidence, resolve and hope, - or we can turn back to the dangerous illusions that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat."
[QB]


How is this an "attack ad"??? The typical example of an attack ad is one that attacks the opponent, but no opponent is even mentioned or hinted at. Now the overly sensitive can imagine that its a broad attack on the entire Democratic party and its foolish policies, but this seems silly and the result of perhaps a guilty conscience. But we covered this in the prior thread, alas, as always, to no avail and in utter futility
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 249
Oracle Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
If the democrats want an end to attack ads, what will they put on TV??? Everytime a democrat opens their mouth, they attack George Bush. They have no agenda whatsoever for this country except they must save us from the evil republicans. And if a republican says anything, the demos are up in arms.
However, I expect that from the democrats (the whining about so-called attack ads), because this is politics. What is disgusting is the so-called major media's response. They take the democratic party-line, hook, line and sinker, as gospel. If the dems say Bush is running attack ads, well, who is ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN to question them.
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Speaking about foolish policies and a guilty conscience, Juan Cole recently wrote a good entry:
"While everyone is beating up on John Kerry for letting it slip he thinks the Bushies are crooked, we might ponder the sort of thing that might have led him to this impression.
It seems fairly obvious by now that the Bush administration likes being lied to. It is even paying for the privilege of being screwed over. This is sort of reverse crooked. It is to crookedness as sado-masochism is to sex. But there are grounds for suspicion of out and out crookedness, too. Reuters reports (as will all the major newspapers today) that the Defense Intelligence Agency is paying Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress $340,000 per month for "intelligence." The INC is the organization that lied to the US until it was blue in the face, falsely claiming it knew for sure that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and weapons. It supplied single-source reports from defectors that were full of tale tales..."
US Intelligence Follies: Why Haven't Cheney, Feith and Chalabi been Impeached?
 
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Speaking about foolish policies and a guilty conscience, Juan Cole recently wrote a good entry:
"While everyone is beating up on John Kerry for letting it slip he thinks the Bushies are crooked, we might ponder the sort of thing that might have led him to this impression.
It seems fairly obvious by now that the Bush administration likes being lied to. It is even paying for the privilege of being screwed over. This is sort of reverse crooked. It is to crookedness as sado-masochism is to sex. But there are grounds for suspicion of out and out crookedness, too. Reuters reports (as will all the major newspapers today) that the Defense Intelligence Agency is paying Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress $340,000 per month for "intelligence." The INC is the organization that lied to the US until it was blue in the face, falsely claiming it knew for sure that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and weapons. It supplied single-source reports from defectors that were full of tale tales..."
US Intelligence Follies: Why Haven't Cheney, Feith and Chalabi been Impeached?


Shall I post a world is flat link.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Juan Cole recently wrote a good entry
A history teacher with a blog. What are the chances that he's a self-important uber-liberal? Approaching unity, methinks.
Anyway, you want to read something, read a critique of one of his rants by someone who actually understands the topic in question. I particularly like the fact that evidently Mr. Cole receives messages in his dreams.
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
A history teacher with a blog.
Well, yes. Juan Cole is a Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan.
Anyway, you want to read something, read a critique of one of his rants by someone who actually understands the topic in question.
I've never heard about Susan Stiles Maneck before, so I checked the front page... Scratching my head. "Susan Stiles Maneck, Ph.D. Assoc. Professor of History Jackson State University". So, like, why "a history teacher" means zero credentials in one case, and symbolizes that somebody "actually understands the topic in question" in another? Only because you don't like what the first orator has to say and like the second?
But anyway, I've been reading his blog for long time, albeit not regularly, and it's pretty informative. He recently participated in a discussion "Iraq: What Now?" at MIT's Center for International Studies, so I figured he has at least some credibility.
I particularly like the fact that evidently Mr. Cole receives messages in his dreams.
Said who? :roll:
But I like you tactics, Joe. Instead of rebutting the facts, you google out some irrelevant e-mail from some self-important conservative about a talk given by someone named Peter Khan at the National Teaching Conference in New Zealand, June 2000! What all this has to do with failure of US intelligence in Iraq in 2003???
Let's read again:
Juan Cole:
"Reuters reports (as will all the major newspapers today) that the Defense Intelligence Agency is paying Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress $340,000 per month for "intelligence." The INC is the organization that lied to the US until it was blue in the face, falsely claiming it knew for sure that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and weapons."
Tabassum Zakaria, Reuters in Washington:
"Washington is paying the Iraqi National Congress exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi about $340,000 (�190,000) a month for intelligence about insurgents and other matters, US officials said yesterday.
Mr Chalabi, a former exile and now a member of the Iraqi governing council, pushed for years for the US to topple Saddam Hussein.
Before the war, his group directed numerous Iraqi defectors to the US to provide intelligence from inside Iraq that critics now say was largely spun to alarm Washington into taking action against Baghdad.
Internal reports revealed that much of the information from the INC was either fabricated or useless. "
Discredited Iraqi exiles still land US spy funds
[ March 12, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
My recollection was that I was told that this quote had nothing to do with electioneering, and it wasn't a swipe at the Democrats, and it was all in my head.

Your recollection is faulty. You claimed that it was an attack on Clinton.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
But I like you tactics, Joe.
I'm simply showing that for every ultra-liberal crackpot you want to point to as an "expert", Map, I can find an opposing viewpoint. It's weird how you find these strange people and then present them as some sort of authority, but one day maybe you'll quit.
However, it doesn't matter anymore. Up until now, I gave you the courtesy of reading your links. That will stop, since you obviously don't give me the same courtesy.
You ask about John Cole seeing thing sin his dreams. Here's the quote from my link:
"Juan Cole writes: :
This is because their decisions are obviously not free from error. In fact, their decisions since 1996 or so have frequently been inquisitorial, fascistic and illogical. Moreover, dragging the poor Bab into it seems awfully cruel. I have seen him in dreams, and he deeply disapproves of what they did to Alison. Khan says that Baha'u'llah guaranteed the houses of justice "divine guidance" but he did not do so in a blanket way. Baha'u'llah says that they are centers of divine inspiration when they engage in true consultation and strive to do what is best for their constituents."
I'll leave it at that. Feel free to go back to my link and actually read it.
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Joe: I'm simply showing that for every ultra-liberal crackpot you want to point to as an "expert", Map, I can find an opposing viewpoint.
In my first post I didn't present Mr. Cole as an "expert". I was simply irritated by Herb's baseless rhetoric about Dem's "guilty conscience" or something, so I grabbed the first quote that would show Reps kinda have something to feel guilty about also, which happened to be Mr. Cole's blog entry I recently read.
It's weird how you find these strange people and then present them as some sort of authority, but one day maybe you'll quit.
You'd have to wait for long time, I am afraid.
However, it doesn't matter anymore. Up until now, I gave you the courtesy of reading your links. That will stop, since you obviously don't give me the same courtesy.
Joe, I started to read your link, and was perplexed what on the earth it has to do with the topic under discussion: Dems. vs. Rep. on the war on terror??? What did you expect me to read: a talk by Peter Khan himself - 34 pages? Reply of Juan Cole to Peter Khan talk - 9 pages? Susan Stiles Maneck's thoughts on Juan Cole's reply on a talk by Peter Khan - 15 pages?
I gave you one small quote that could be verified. That Reuters reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency is paying Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress $340,000 per month for "intelligence" and that the INC in past provided false information about Saddam's weapons.
You: I'm simply showing that for every ultra-liberal crackpot you want to point to as an "expert", Map, I can find an opposing viewpoint.
An opposing viewpoint that a Peter Khan, an Australian Bahaist, is not such a fundamentalist Jual Cole believes him to be???
Joe, this is not an opposing viewpoint, it is an irrelevant viewpoint. An opposing viewpoint would be that Reuters never reported anything like this, or that the Defense Intelligence Agency never paid INC any money, or that INC provided damn correct info about Saddams' WMD programs.
Is it clear now?
Eugene: The difference is essentially the word "hope" in the ad. Which makes me wonder, -- who edits Bush's ads? I mean, how can one go forward with confidence and hope?
Isn't it what we just did?
The state of the Union:"... or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us."
I think that later additional "with hope" means that we hope to actually find a threat after we are there.
[ March 13, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I know I shouldn't do this... I know I shouldn't do this... I know I shouldn't do this... but I'm going to try.
I gave you one small quote that could be verified.
Map, you did NOT give a small verifiable quote. Had you simply pointed to the Reuters article, that would have been a small verifiable link. And had you done that, I'd have had no problem. Instead, you gave THIS quote:

While everyone is beating up on John Kerry for letting it slip he thinks the Bushies are crooked, we might ponder the sort of thing that might have led him to this impression.
It seems fairly obvious by now that the Bush administration likes being lied to. It is even paying for the privilege of being screwed over. This is sort of reverse crooked. It is to crookedness as sado-masochism is to sex. But there are grounds for suspicion of out and out crookedness, too."


Now, I'm not refuting the Reuters report, which looks to me to simply be standard intelligence gathering silliness. If you pay someone to be a traitor, what do you expect? But that never stopped any government in history from doing it.
But it's not criminal, despite Mr. Cole's rather subjective version of reality. And herein lies the problem. Rather than simply supplying the Reuters link and possibly your own interpretation, you instead chose to quote Mr. Cole's allegation of criminal activity. It is this that I am objecting to, and I am merely responding by saying that Juan Cole is a nutbag and his interpretation is as loony as his having seen the Bab in a dream.
My point is this: if you want people to take your opinions seriously, quote credible sources. I personally find Reuters far more credible than a man who has visions in his dreams.
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Now, I'm not refuting the Reuters report, which looks to me to simply be standard intelligence gathering silliness. If you pay someone to be a traitor, what do you expect? But that never stopped any government in history from doing it.
No disagreement here.
But it's not criminal, despite Mr. Cole's rather subjective version of reality. And herein lies the problem. Rather than simply supplying the Reuters link and possibly your own interpretation, you instead chose to quote Mr. Cole's allegation of criminal activity.
Mmm.. silliness, I would say. "Criminal activity" - this would call for a far harder investigation, and I am not going to sign a list.
It is this that I am objecting to, and I am merely responding by saying that Juan Cole is a nutbag and his interpretation is as loony as his having seen the Bab in a dream.
I had to read all these pages to figure out who on the Earth "the Bab" is. Up until now I am still not sure if the guy was kidding, speaking about his dreams. But you are probably better in reading people's minds, Joe.
But whatever. Your way of arguing, Joe, is called "attacking a person rather than his statements", and I am not sure about merits of this way of discussing.
[ March 14, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Map, that's too offensive to respond to. You might want to edit yourself.
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
What exactly is so offensive? You need to provide some explanations, Joe.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
What exactly is so offensive? You need to provide some explanations, Joe.
No I don't, Map.
Joe
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Joe, if you think I need to edit myself, certainly you know what exactly I need to edit.
 
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

I just read that Dr. Martin Luther King did misquote somebody in his PhD dissertation, hedging on plagiarism. I guess, this means we should put all these black guys back in their place, no? I mean, when taking a bus, I should expect a black girl to jump from her place to let ME (me, myself) seat, right?


He is talking about this part. It seems a little over the top to me as well.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ok, I cut this paragraph out. I still would appreciate if somebody actually explained to me what exactly constituted the offense.
 
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1340
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I particularly like the fact that evidently Mr. Cole receives messages in his dreams.
I wonder how God communicates with the US president. Is it through dreams or voices?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
I wonder how God communicates with the US president. Is it through dreams or voices?


Bush never claimed that God communicates with him. More to the point, I'm getting sick and tired of the constant scorn and ridicule heaped upon those who have religious beliefs by some of the posters here (who I'll leave nameless for the moment). I might find aetheism and agnosticism equally scornful and ridiculous, but at least I have the common decency to keep it to myself.
[ March 14, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
John Smith
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Jason To Richard: More to the point, I'm getting sick and tired of the constant scorn and ridicule heaped upon those who have religious beliefs by you and a couple of other posters (who I'll leave nameless for the moment). I might find aetheism and agnosticism equally scornful and ridiculous, but at least I have the common decency to keep it to myself.
Leave nameless for the moment? Are you waiting for the right opportunity? Well, tonight is as good time as any, so I shall step forward. Just like you find atheism and agnosticism scornful and ridiculous, I find the killing in the name of Allah (Christ, Krishna, fill in for your favorite action hero) criminal. I have the common decency to express my point of view rather than fall into a "silent decency" trap, which has such a primitive design that only a greenhorn can step into it. The truth is, we need the religious extremists and the extreme atheists to wash out the excess of irrationality from both sides. The "good" would be meaningless if "evil" didn't exist. The common misconception is to locate the "good" in one of the extreme points of the pendulum swing, while in fact it is centered in between the two opposite evils.
Back to the topic, I'd like to offer this quote (the source has been debated):
Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.
 
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1340
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Bush never claimed that God communicates with him. More to the point, I'm getting sick and tired of the constant scorn and ridicule heaped upon those who have religious beliefs by you and a couple of other posters (who I'll leave nameless for the moment). I might find aetheism and agnosticism equally scornful and ridiculous, but at least I have the common decency to keep it to myself.
I certainly do not heap constant scorn on those with religious beliefs, nor do I find such people ridiculous. More to the point, my post was merely reflecting Joe's comment. Regardless that the Bush/"God told me" quote was widely reported and never denied (AFAIK), my post wasn't meant to be taken that seriously.
btw, if anyone has been offended by any religious comment I've made, then I apologise, really. However, I really can't recall anything particularly offensive
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
[qb]I certainly do not heap constant scorn on those with religious beliefs, nor do I find such people ridiculous. More to the point, my post was merely reflecting Joe's comment. Regardless that the Bush/"God told me" quote was widely reported and never denied (AFAIK), my post wasn't meant to be taken that seriously.
btw, if anyone has been offended by any religious comment I've made, then I apologise, really. However, I really can't recall anything particularly offensive


I may have confused you with another poster, in which case I offer my apologies. I've noticed more of this type of stuff here lately so perhaps I overeacted. I obviously did not take that post the way you apparently meant it to be taken, so again I apologize for jumping down your throat.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Regardless that the Bush/"God told me" quote was widely reported and never denied (AFAIK)
Widely reported by whom, Richard? Every single quote on the entire Internet eventually leads to the Haaretz piece. And how did they get this information? "The Israeli newspaper Haaretz was given transcripts of a negotiating session between Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and faction leaders from Hamas and other militant groups."
Okee dokee. Transcripts from a negotiating session where prime minister Abbas recounts his version of the President's words. Double hearsay.
It would be fun to have... oh, I don't know... corroboration? Even from Abbas, although the President himself would probably be a better source.
Anyway, as you say, not to be taken seriously.
Joe
 
Richard Hawkes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1340
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I may have confused you with another poster, in which case I offer my apologies. I've noticed more of this type of stuff here lately so perhaps I overeacted. I obviously did not take that post the way you apparently meant it to be taken, so again I apologize for jumping down your throat.
Ok, thank you.
Anyway my apology still stands and I'll try to be clearer in the future. I never set out to offend people though I realise my sense of humor isn't shared by everyone.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
... It would be fun to have... oh, I don't know... corroboration? Even from Abbas, although the President himself would probably be a better source. - I tried to find some corroboration too after these posts but I had no luck. Nothing on Snopes even! By widely reported I meant simply that it was widely quoted at the time and, given the hooha it generated, it was strange it was never denied or at least corrected by the White House, again AFAIK (but then why should they deny every "crack-pot" report right? Sometimes if you ignore stuff, it does go away).
Anyway my (poorly made) point was that whether or not Bush or Cole are affected by dreams/messages, niether are more or less credible for it.
 
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza, a hole in the bucket, dear liza, a tiny ad:
Java file APIs (DOC, XLS, PDF, and many more)
https://products.aspose.com/total/java
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!