Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Islamic terrorists want George W. Bush to win another term. Why? Because they know with Bush/Cheney in power they will be locked into a struggle that will lead to further demise of American foreign policy, and long-term security.

I just started reading “Imperial Hubris” by that Anonymous CIA guy. He calls the Bush administration’s policies “bin Laden’s indispensable ally.”

Bruce:

Apparently you think that approximately half of the American public is just too stupid to understand the “intelligence” in your viewpoint.

Over the past 12 years, the American public has voted to increase the number of Republicans in the House and Senate, and has voted virtually evenly on the Presidency. Even during the two Clinton presidencies, his popular vote did not exceed 49% of the total votes. Our country is well divided on politics and political orientation these days, perhaps more so than ever before.

Yet you take a rather dangerous intellectual position: that anyone disagreeing with you
must—MUST— be stupid in order to have a different opinion. You totally discount the possibility that people are in favor of the tax cuts, or that people want the current foreign policy, or that people are against embryonic versus adult stem cell research, or…..

By saying that war is the only reason anyone would vote Republican is to miss the lesson of the 1990’s, when there was no war, yet the elections were still very divided. You would also miss considering that the 2000 election (a virtual statistical tie) didnt fit into your equation.

Your assumptions, therefore, rest on faulty logic. They arent backed by any of the statistics from the past 3 elections—in fact, you’d have to go back to the Nixon years to even have the possibility of being correct.

jbod —

I think you’ve drawn some conclusions from the post that I don’t see at all, but I notice that you don’t dispute the assertion that Bush hasn’t the capacity to argue his own positions logically. Do you disagree with that assertion, and if not, why isn’t it important for a president to be able to think on his feet?

alejo:

I simply chose to not tackle that part of the post, since its obvious that Bruce has a strong opinion on that issue that will not be swayed.

I’ve seen Bush fumble with the language, yet make his points very clear. You can disagree with his conclusions, yet the logic is still there. Like all politicians, he places emphasis on things where he wants the emphasis, and downplays other things, but nothing new there.

Is Bush as good a debater as Kerry is? Nope, not from what I have seen. But I also see Kerry “working” the facts to fit his side—he’s very good at that. It doesnt make him any more right, but it does allow him to look good in a debate format.

It’s important to be able to think on your feet, as a President, yet what is far more important is making the right decision, not simply the fastest one. I believe Bush has done that—-I recognize that you won’t agree with that.

Alejo, as an example, I am not the greatest speaker—I’m the guy who thinks of the great comeback 10 minutes late. Does that make me unintelligent or illogical? No, it has no bearing on that. Does it make me a bit slower on my feet—-certainly. But through my career, I’ve recognized my inability to “shoot from the hip” and I’ve found ways to show my detailed and reasoned thought process.

What this means is that I would never have made a good trial lawyer, where thinking quickly on your feet is an essential part of the job. But I’d have made a helluva lawyer of a different sort (had I wanted to start down the steps to Hell itself—ha ha).

Alejo, I don’t see Bush’s verbal gaffes as indicative of a lack of cognitive ability, like some do. Casey Stengel was a master of verbal malaprops, yet he won numerous World Series and is considered a great manager. If you want to look for weakness, you can find it anywhere you choose. But you also can find strength in the actions of the President, and these speak louder than any words.

jbod —

I guess it’s a difference in philosophy. I don’t know what you do for a living, but I would imagine you gravitated to something that involved less public speaking (like I did)? In my book, the president has to be able to think on his feet and be able to speak clearly and thoughtfully at all times because he is the chief diplomat. The whole world judges us based on our president. I don’t know whether you share the same strange semi-isolationist, go-it-alone mentality that a lot of the Red Team seems to go for, but I personally think our relationship with the rest of humanity should be based on something other than fear or hatred. I want a president who is respected by the rest of the world and by me.

I’ve seen Bush fumble with the language, yet make his points very clear.

Really? How come, if you ask five different people why Bush invaded Iraq, you get five different answers? How come no one seems to know what Bush’s end game is in Iraq? What’s Bush’s strategy for defeating terror?

I’ve paid a lot of attention to Bush since 9/11, and I seriously have no clue what Bush stands for, or what he’s trying to accomplish.

> I’ve seen Bush fumble with the language,
> yet make his points very clear.

Bush’s points, when they are clear, are generally quite simple: We’re fighting for freedom. With us or with the terrorists. These set the basic message quite clearly, and I agreed with the “with us or with the terrorists” speech quite a bit. But have you ever heard him explain anything that is complicated? Anything in detail?

I’m not saying necessarily that he’s incapable of it, but rather that he just doesn’t even try to explain complicated policies. I’ve never heard it. He usually lapses back to simple platitudes, even statements that are so simplistic they are patently absurd like “they hate us for our freedoms”.

Kerry’s stump speeches and debate statements aren’t exactly advanced geopolitical theories either, but I have heard him talk about complex issues in the past and in his major speeches, and I’ve heard him discuss many issues in great detail. Bush? Never.

-Cf

I brought this up before in another thread but no one responded:

Has anybody noticed the change in Bush’s face lately? I just watched some footage from last year and noticed that since then the left side of his mouth has drooped way down, almost like facial paralysis from a stroke. In fact, in the last debate there was spit in the corner of his mouth the whole time as if he didn’t know it was there.

I’m not just saying this to poke fun: Check it out for yourself. I think Bush has some sort of neurological damage.

“Check it out for yourself. I think Bush has some sort of neurological damage.”

I have a friend who is a professional speach therapist who has been saying for three years now that she can tell just by the way the president speaks that he has neurological damage. She claims that the way he talks is identical to people who have been serious drug users.

Alejo, stop saying that! You’re giving aid and comfort to the terrorists!

-Cf

Upon reading the response from “joebagodonuts”, I now understand where he picked up his nickname. Too much time at the donut shop. Joe’s response is typical of “blindsighted” conservatives, who instead of answering the issues just make commentary in order to evade answering for their positions.

Joe, you are in a Republican time-warp, unable to see the forest through the trees. Learn how to do some RESEARCH. Learn how to get out into the streets, on the telephone, and TALK TO PEOPLE. Forget what you read in the newspaper.

In direct response to YOUR FAULTY AND UNMERITORIOUS ASSERTIONS:

1) You have no idea what I think about any percent of the American public. The very beginning of your response shows you to be lacking in credibility.

2) Your second paragraph regarding the even divide within the country, FAILS to take into account that the VOTE is only one measure. The DEPTH of people’s feelings either for or against specific issues is THE GUIDING FACTOR. And this guiding factor has meant that even though more Republicans have been elected, there is a move towards a broader base of ‘moderate’ Republicans, who do not ‘kow tow’ to the emperor.

3) I take NO POSITION as you ridiculously state … “that anyone disagreeing with you must—MUST—be stupid…” Your claim is baseless … as are all your other statements.

4) The issue regarding the ‘war’ and Bush/Cheney has NOTHING to do with voting Republican. It has to do with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. If it were not for this intentionally extended war (for political fodder), they would not even be in the race (probably would have lost at their own convention). Take away the war factor, and G.W.B. (cousin to W.M.D.) would be 20 points behind. Where is your thinking joebagodonuts? Did you forget reality?

5) The 2000 election was NOT a statistical tie. When you take the votes for Ralph Nader, Buchanan, etc., which took votes away from Gore, there was no statistical tie. In fact, it is not even statistics, but basic math. You remember basic math don’t you?

In closing, I have read quite a few responses the world over. Yours is absolutely unfounded, ridiculous, and speaks volumes of people talking without any basis in fact. You should be a politician.

As for George W. Bush, the fact that he and Dick Cheney manufactured the intelligence data in the run up, the drum up to the Iraq War, leaves no doubt they do not have any moral fiber. Smoke and mirrors.

And when it comes to a ‘leader’, I prefer a person who: A) CAN THINK, B) CAN HOLD A CONVERSATION, C) CAN DO SO WITHOUT CUE CARDS.

We have two people who LEAD, but WITHOUT ‘LEADERSHIP’ Skills. There is a fundamental difference.

Joe,
” Over the past 12 years, the American public has voted to increase the number of Republicans in the House and Senate, and has voted virtually evenly on the Presidency. “

The victory you claim for the Republicans, came as the result of a voter turnout of less than 40%.
If the Democrats got off their lazy butts and voted, this never would have happened.

Mr. Senator:

I’ll respond to your vitriolic statements this one time, but since you chose to attack ME and not so much my message, I’ll leave you alone in the future. I’d much rather discuss with those in these blogs who don’t show the type of reaction that you do.

A few things for you to chew on, to help you understand my comments. You said:

without war there would be no reason whatever to even consider another Bush/Cheney or Bush/Anybody presidency, let alone the positions taken by their party

You are saying is that those who would vote for Bush/Cheney are only doing so because of the war.
You then go on to assert that the war is based on “‘outright lies’” and is being led by two men who you claim are “pathological liars”. The only logical conclusion, then, is that you think the roughly 50% of voters who plan to vote for Bush/Cheney are either stupid, ignorant, or deluded. Yet you take offense when I point out what your assertions mean.

Secondly, you show a complete lack of understanding of how the voting process works, and in doing so, you also show a blatant partisanship that is rather unseemly. By all accounts, Gore won the popular vote—he got 48.38% of the votes cast, while Bush got 47.87%. This equates to a margin of victory of around 1/2 of 1%. If you don’t consider that statistically close, then I simply don’t have the time nor energy to convince you of the obvious.

As I stated, your opinions are too rabidly partisan to continue an intelligent discussion. Perhaps you will find others who enjoy your style; I do not. While you may find it necessary to reply to my clarifying comments, I shall not find it necessary to read or comment further on this thread.

Rocky:

I understand your point, but I dont see the importance of it. The bottom line is that Democrats have not, for what ever reason, chosen to vote in such a manner. To extend your logic, we could safely then assume that a woman president is in order since if every woman voted thusly, a woman would win the election.

What is important is HOW people choose to vote, not what might occur should they choose to vote in a certain manner.

Clinton’s victories in the 90’s both came with less than 50% of the popular vote. That in no way invalidates his presidency, nor his elections. It simply shows that he got the most votes of those cast, and those votes translated into an Electoral College victory under the guidelines of the Constitution. But by using your logic, one could claim he is invalidated.

Joe, I would not wish to invalidate the Republican’s victories. However I would not see them as a mandate either. Much has been made of these victories to denegrate the Democratic party. The word liberal has become an insult. It has been since these wins by the Republicans that the country has become polarized as never before. What do the Republicans think can be acomplished by that?

Alejo:

I too want a President who is respected by other countries. It would be nice if he were liked by other countries as well.

But if the only way to be respected and/or liked is to hold the line to THEIR desires, then I’d rather have a President who does the right thing and defies their wishes. I’m not going to address specifics, since a lot of what I think is the “right” thing to do, you might conclude as the “wrong” thing to do.

I dont hold to the “semi-isolationist, go-it-alone mentality” unless it is required. You will most likely think it has not been required—I would disagree on that point.

I beleive the US has not protected herself enough in the past decades. We have allowed attacks with relative impunity, which has earned us the “respect” of those who don’t want to see us on the attack. Yet that kind of respect is not worth having.

I agreed with Clinton at the time of Operation Desert Fox, yet I felt it didn’t go far enough. That bombing took away from other country’s respect of Clinton, while he earned some respect for stopping the bombing. I felt he should have continued his strategy in that same forceful manner, regardless of whether it affected the “respect” that other countries had for him.

As I see it, the difference is in what kind of respect you get. I dont want the kind of respect that you get only when you kow tow to the wishes of the world, to our own detriment. I recognize that you see this fundamental area differently, and Im not trying to alter your thought process, but rather to help you see my thought process and the basic difference in opinion we have.

jbod —

You’re right, it comes down to point of view. I don’t see diplomacy as kowtowing. It’s discussion and negotiation and compromise. I’d never argue that we should bow to the wishes of another country, or group of countries, but I feel the Bush administration has gone to the opposite end of spectrum, where no one’s desires matter unless they match those of George Bush. That to me is a perfect example of the short-term strategy mind that a lot of America, politically and corporately, seems to embrace. Even though alienating other industrialized countries will hurt us in the long term, there’s always this hope that it will somehow turn out all right.

Again, a difference in point of view, but I’d say so far George Bush’s faith has not borne fruit.

Joe,
I don’t see negotiation as kow towing. Each has to give and take according to ones interests.
Never giving up anything in return ins’t negotiation.
Bush has a mindset that everything he does is right. It’s like he’s on a mission from God.
That scares me more than terrorism.

Rocky:

I think you are being swayed by the media, to be honest. Many Presidents have said they have a faith in God, and that this faith leads them in their decision making process. Jimmy Carter said the same things, yet took the country in a very different direction.

Bush has not answered specifically to the question of what mistakes he has made, precisely because its a set up question. If he gives a specific mistake, the press will castigate him endlessly for it. If he doesnt the press will castigate him endlessly for that. He’s admitted making mistakes, but has done so only in general terms.

A man’s belief system will guide his actions. And religious beliefs do the same. We have noticed Kerry jumping on the religion bandwagon recently, for political purpose. He uses his belief in God (and that Jesus says to help the poor) as his reason for some of his policies. How is this any different than what Bush, or many other Presidents have done?

I’d much rather discuss with those in these blogs who don’t show the type of reaction that you do.

Kinda makes me look like a wuss, don’t it? Seriously, Bruce, lighten up a little. You’re pushing the envelope of our guidelines.

The Reds have a valid viewpoint, even if it is totally wrong most of the time. Sometimes, though, they’ll say something smart. Even Eric, who turned me on to Barnett’s “The Pentagon’s New Map”, so I have to thank him for that. :)

jbod,

Many Presidents have said they have a faith in God, and that this faith leads them in their decision making process.

I’ve heard several presidents say they pray to God for wisdom. I’ve never heard anyone but Bush say that God tells him things. That’s just creepy.

Joe,
I am not here to defend Kerry, but I haven’t heard him use the word “crusade”.
Joe don’t insult my intelligence. I am capable of forming my own opinions. I’m not blind or deaf. I’ve heard words coming out of Bush’s mouth that scare the poop out of me.
BTW, we’re not talking about the past, this is the present, and this present is scarey as hell.
Carter is just a vague memory. A lot of things have happened in the last 25 years, not all for the better.

Rocky:

I didnt mean to impugn your intelligence in any way. I do think the media presents Christianity in a way that makes it seem to be wacked out. Then, when people hear Bush say something, they view it through the lens of the caricature that the media has presented.

While there are aspects of Christianity, and of virtually every religion, that go to the edge of the perspective, its not accurate to consider Bush a part of that fringe.

AP says he hasnt heard other Presidents say that God talks to them, and perhaps they havent put it in that plain way, though I’d suspect Carter may have said things in that way. In order to understand the context of that kind of statement, one must understand Christianity fully.

Its not intended in such a way as to express that God speaks verbally, as He did to Moses out of the burning bush. Rather, it is intended to convey that when we pray to God for wisdom, as AP admitted many Presidents have, that we get some sort of an answer back. A prayer for wisdom, with no answer, isn’t worth all that much, in my opinion.

I have prayed to God, and I have heard God’s answer, or perhaps I have seen it, or perhaps felt it. Its not really possible to put into finite words how the answer comes about, but the answer nonetheless has sometimes been clear. Other times the answer seems muddled, though it may be my inability to hear it properly. (In the same way, you could explain calculus to me expertly, but my inability to “hear” or understand your explanation would make it muddled)

Rocky, my apologies for seeming to have insulted your intelligence. From your comments, I sense a lack of complete understanding of Christianity, which I’ve seen in many people, myself included. David Remer is a self described Buddhist, and I do not know much about Buddhism, so I may unintionally misinterpret his comments due to my ignorance of his belief structure. I beleive the same is true for many in regard to Bush’s statements.

AP:

You may be many things, but wuss aint one of em. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which things you ARE….lol

Jbod:
“I think you are being swayed by the media, to be honest. Many Presidents have said they have a faith in God, and that this faith leads them in their decision making process. Jimmy Carter said the same things, yet took the country in a very different direction.”

As far as I know, Jimmy Carter never said anything of the sort. While a Baptist, Carter has never approved of the extreme end of the Baptist faith, then or now.
Evoking Carter only shows us how times have changed. Back then, political contenders did not try to use religion as a stick to beat their opponents with.
As for Carter trying to take the country in a different direction, I’d say it was because he is a man who has always tried to _Live_ his faith, rather than just use it as a political strategy to win voters. Everything he has done since leaving office is testament to that fact.

“Bush has not answered specifically to the question of what mistakes he has made, precisely because its a set up question. If he gives a specific mistake, the press will castigate him endlessly for it. If he doesnt the press will castigate him endlessly for that.”

If only the press _would_ castigate him!!! In my opinion the majority of those in the press have been nothing but good soldiers to this administration. And that can not be good for our democracy - or for the mindset of our presidents.

“He’s admitted making mistakes, but has done so only in general terms.”

EVERYTHING he says is framed in general terms. Admit it. Now, whether this is done because he doesn’t understand anything in depth, or he does this because he thinks the majority of people listening to him don’t have a clue over what those mistakes are or the severity of them, is a question I for one, would love to know the answer to.

“A man’s belief system will guide his actions. And religious beliefs do the same.”

But when we speak of public figures, especially those that we are potentially voting into office, one must have to believe that that persons belief system is authentic, or accordingly question the authenticity of those beliefs when it seems they are being used as a political tool.

“We have noticed Kerry jumping on the religion bandwagon recently, for political purpose. He uses his belief in God (and that Jesus says to help the poor) as his reason for some of his policies.”

Or perhaps to point up the hypocrisy of his contender?

“How is this any different than what Bush, or many other Presidents have done?”

Bush stands alone in his overpowering use of religion as a political tool among presidents. And the fact that he has so blatantly done so, makes many people question the authenticity of his supposed deep faith. And if, on the other hand, that faith is as authentic and deep as he would lead us to believe, then we must wonder if there isn’t something a tad too extreme about it.
For, as William Penn (for whom Pennsylvania was named) once said: “To be furious in religion is to be furiously irreligious.”

Joe,
It’s not my understanding of Christianity that’s the problem, it’s my understanding of Christians.
I am an agnostic, I spent my formative years in a school being taught by Franciscan nuns. I went to prep school where I was taught by the Holy Ghost fathers.
I don’t need to be lectured about Christianity. Most Christians are the least Christlike of any people in my experience. Some, not all, will hose you in a heartbeat, and then pray for forgiveness on Sunday, then they claim the moral high ground.
The right in this country needs to realize that they share this country with many people, of many faiths. Their veiw is not the only right veiw.

Adrienne:

You have your opinions locked up, and I fear nothing will dissuade you from them. That you see the media as being in Bush’s pocket is simply ludicrous. To believe this, you must ignore the CBS melodrama, you must have never seen Katie Couric lob softball questions to Democrats while lambasting Republicans, you must have missed out on much of what has been in print over the past 4 years.

You alternately question whether Bush has a true faith which is too extreme, or whether Bush uses his religion for political purposes. Reminds me of the bunch who alternately claim Bush to be stupid and at the same time a highly clever evil genius. You can assert one position or the other, but to do both is simply defeating either argument.

My question, which you took out of its context, was how it is any different for Bush to say he is guided by his faith in policy decisions, when Kerry is saying the exact same thing: “The second commandment means that our commitment to equal rights and social justice, here and around the world, is not simply a matter of political fashion or economic and social theory but a direct command from God” Kerry says that our policies on social justice and equal rights come from a direct command from God. Where is the media uproar on Kerry using religion to formulate policy??

Rocky:

Easy big fella, EASY!! I didn’t lecture you on anything—-you seem just a bit more defensive about things. What I actually did was apologize for any indication that I was slighting you in any way.

You are correct that many Christians do not uphold the tenets of Christianity. This is true of any religion. This does not diminish the religion itself, but does diminish the individual not living up to his/her own ideals.

Most Christians are the least Christlike of any people in my experience.

This comment is anecdotal from your experience only. I can as easily say that most Christians are the most Christlike of any people, in my experience.

I’d refer also to the definition of Christianity we are using. Since the context of the discussion has been Bush’s Christianity, I am looking at his particular brand of Christianity, knowing as you do that there are many different manners of Christian belief.

I’m not sure what part of my post to you led you to comment that “The right in this country needs to realize that they share this country with many people, of many faiths. Their veiw is not the only right veiw.”

I’d agree fully with that premise. I happen to think my view of religion is the correct one, since its the one I choose to believe. I’d expect you to believe that YOUR belief is the correct one, which is why you’ve chosen it. I doubt many people choose to follow a belief that they don’t believe is correct.

But in believing that my view is correct, I don’t mandate that others follow my view. They are free to follow whatever they choose, as you have done. But if asked whether I believe my view to be correct, I will assert my free speech and discuss intelligently why it is so.

Joe,
sorry if you took offence.
Virtually all of the various Christian sects belive that their’s is the only true sect. You have to belive as they do or you aren’t going to Heaven.
As for Bush’s faith, I belive he is an Evangelical Christian, which is, In my experience, anecdotal or not, one of the least Christlike, dispite their claims to the contrary.
These folks, are the most prejdicial of all Christians.
My faith is in myself. I belive that we should treat “all” other people as we wish to be treated. There are no caveats on this.

jbod:
“You have your opinions locked up, and I fear nothing will dissuade you from them.”

Well, I have already voted, so you are right. But my opinions about Bush have been formulated over the past four years, just as yours have, and we are both entitled to them.

“That you see the media as being in Bush’s pocket is simply ludicrous. To believe this, you must ignore the CBS melodrama,”

CBS screwed up by trying to scoop a story before they checked their facts, this happens all the time in the press, but somehow it became “Rathergate”.
The president took us to war on extremely shaky intelligence and the press failed to discuss that intelligence before the war. Then, we get mea culpas from several newspapers that really don’t do us a whole lot of good after the fact.
Condi Rice knew about our soldiers perpetrating torture at Guantanamo (which in turn lead directly to Abu Graib) and did nothing for two years until the story was finally broken by Sy Hersh of the New Yorker (who was also the one who told us what happened at Mai Lai during Vietnam) and he initially gets trashed for it.
There are far too few Sy Hersh’s these days, in my opinion.

“you must have never seen Katie Couric lob softball questions to Democrats while lambasting Republicans,”

I don’t watch the Today show - I read and listen to news in the morning and watch entertainment (such as The Daily Show) in the evening.

“you must have missed out on much of what has been in print over the past 4 years.”

I read everything I can get my hands or my mouse button on - I’m a news junkie.

“You alternately question whether Bush has a true faith which is too extreme,”

True faith that is either too extreme, or possibly not authentic, yes.

“or whether Bush uses his religion for political purposes.”

I didn’t question that, I stated that as a fact of my opinion.

“Reminds me of the bunch who alternately claim Bush to be stupid and at the same time a highly clever evil genius.”

I have several times asserted here in WB that I believe Bush to be fairly dim witted. and that I think he is being used as a puppet by the clever and evil genius of the neo-cons in his administration.

“You can assert one position or the other, but to do both is simply defeating either argument.”

No one but Bush can know whether he is authentic or not regarding his faith - it comes down to a question of whether one takes his word for it. I am not certain, but like I said, either way it shows a man who thinks nothing of using his religion to garner votes. If he is not authentic, then he is being crafty and disingenuous, if it is authentic, its downright scary.

“My question, which you took out of its context, was how it is any different for Bush to say he is guided by his faith in policy decisions, when Kerry is saying the exact same thing:”

Kerry has never claimed that everything he does is guided by his faith. If he did, I would not have voted for him. I want a president that is guided by his ability to _reason_, even if he sometimes has to make choices that go against the teachings of his faith.

“The second commandment means that our commitment to equal rights and social justice, here and around the world, is not simply a matter of political fashion or economic and social theory but a direct command from God” Kerry says that our policies on social justice and equal rights come from a direct command from God. Where is the media uproar on Kerry using religion to formulate policy??”

Perhaps because that is a true statement. Our country was founded by men who recognized that social justice and equal rights were extremely important And that belief was held by those who were influenced by the ten commandments - which is always the starting point whenever anyone discusses questions of morality in the western tradition. Fortunately for us however, they wanted those truths to be self-evident, and did not want religion to be part and parcel of our govt.
Will Kerry use his religion to formulate policy? No doubt he will if his religion informs his sense of morality. Will religion be his only guide in formulating his policies? I doubt it, because he really seems to be a thoughtful and intelligent man of reason.

But, if President Kerry ever begins to refer to his religion constantly the way President Bush has, you will hear me say the same things about him at that time as I have said here now about Bush. And thats a promise.

Adrienne:

Thanks for the clarification of your views. I happen not to mind that Bush sees his decisions in the light of his inner beliefs. I recognize that some dislike the inner beliefs he holds true, and therefore may not like that he uses them thusly.

My opinion of Kerry, based on roughly the last year or so, is that he has deep seated feelings, but they don’t seem steadfast to me. Because he is so nuanced, he tends to meander in the middle ground of decisions, seeing all sides to every equation and giving weight to each viewpoint. this makes true decision making difficult, since no decision is devoid of problems, nor the only truthful or good answer.

While we may disagree, I appreciate your viewpoint to the extent you’ve developed it based on logical thought processes. That’s to say that while I reach a different conclusion, I can certainly see how you have reached yours. I appreciate also the intelligence with which you have discussed your opinions, as opposed to some in here who show no such intelligence. (Of course, those who show no intelligence will never ever think I’m talking about them, so they are immune to this comment…ha ha)

So Joe, what you are saying is that subtlety is your strong suit?

Joe,

(Of course, those who show no intelligence will never ever think I’m talking about them, so they are immune to this comment…ha ha)

Weren’t you ever taught about double negitives?

jbod:
“I recognize that some dislike the inner beliefs he holds true, and therefore may not like that he uses them thusly.”

Its not that I dislike his beliefs, its that I don’t like how constantly he refers to them - as though they’re his sole guide to decision making of any kind. It smacks of extremism, and I never trust a fanatic. If he had at least sometimes referred to other guides or influences which he felt had helped him to make his decisions, I’m certain I wouldn’t be so harsh with my criticisms now.

“My opinion of Kerry, based on roughly the last year or so, is that he has deep seated feelings, but they don’t seem steadfast to me. Because he is so nuanced, he tends to meander in the middle ground of decisions, seeing all sides to every equation and giving weight to each viewpoint. this makes true decision making difficult, since no decision is devoid of problems, nor the only truthful or good answer.”

Well, I feel that wise decision making _must_ be made up of weighing and considering each viewpoint and then choosing the one that seems like the best one at that moment in time. Problems may arise with any decisions we make, but if we’ve worked logically and diligently at reaching the final answers, at least we’re able to be sure and certain of the reasoning which lead us make them. Doing so also makes it easier to explain that process to those who might question the decisions after they have been made.
All of these things are important skills I feel a president must have - because lest we forget, he is hired to work for us and by us.

“While we may disagree, I appreciate your viewpoint to the extent you’ve developed it based on logical thought processes. That’s to say that while I reach a different conclusion, I can certainly see how you have reached yours. I appreciate also the intelligence with which you have discussed your opinions”

Thanks Joe. Despite the fact that your differing view seems as well locked-up as my own, I can appreciate your perspective. After all, theres no point and little fun to be had in debating with those you agree with!

Rocky:

Actually, if you re read the sentence, there isn’t a double negative, since the subject is “those” (ie, those who show no intelligence) and “never ever” is an adverb which is modifying the verb “think”. I think you took the “no intelligence” and the “never ever” as being a double negative, which it isnt.

By the way, I aint never been no anal retentive kinda guy…….

Joe,
understand I am not against people practicing their chosen forms of religion. I am though, against any train of thought that only allows for closed minds.
The neo-con trend toward “I’m right and I’ll never change my mind” disturbs me. I can’t fathom someone so dogmatic that they can’t even see change when change is nesscesary.
I don’t like either one of these candidates. I think that they are both just different sides of the same coin.
Like I said before, the counry is polarized as never before. You can’t lay all the blame on the Democrats.

Rocky:

I’m afraid that we seem to be on different pages, and I’m unsure of what point you are trying to make. I don’t see anything in my posts that would lead you to say “You can’t lay all the blame on the Democrats.”

I don’t think I have laid the blame on Democrats solely. I’ve said that our country has voted Republicans into office in such a manner that Republicans control the House and Senate and Presidency, not a common occurrence. I’ve said that it’s rational to hold Republican party viewpoints, and not be considered stupid for doing so. I’ve not blamed the Democrats at all, as far as I can tell, although I disagree with many of their platforms.

As far as your perspective on religion, I took no offense but would have to say I find it flawed. I agree with your statement that “we should treat “all” other people as we wish to be treated. There are no caveats on this.” It is one of the pillars of Christianity (Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself Luke 6:31).

Perhaps you see some Christians who don’t fulfill that statement, and believe that all Christians therefore are similar. I assure you they are not.

I personally believe there is one way to get to Heaven, but that it is a doorway open to every single person. In that way, it is totally INclusive—there are no restrictions to who can enter through the doorway. But….there are those who choose not to enter through the doorway. They are free to make that choice.

You might see that as being EXclusive, but to me exclusivity is not allowing someone to do something. My belief allows each and every person to enter into Heaven, should they choose to do so. But they have to make that choice. The invitation is open ended, but requires a positive decisive action.

I’ve seen George Bush state his faith, and hold true to it. Those who know him personally talk about how his faith has transformed him, how he is better as a result of it. And I choose to believe that about him.

Joe, here’s the point I was trying to make, and please don’t take this as an attack on you.

The religous right has taken over this country. They have won it fair and square through the electoral process.

The Democrats allowed this to happen through inaction.

I am annoyed at the loss of balance in the law making process, that the balance which had begun to center itself during the early Ninties has taken an adbrupt turn back to the right.
Say what you will about Clinton, but he was able to work with the Republican Congress.
I am also annoyed at the tennor of todays politics led by the neo-con talk radio, which echoes all the way to the top of government.
It’s not clever to be a bully.

With people like Limbaugh calling for the destruction of the Democratic party, these are scarey times, my friend.

Don’t take me for a pawn of the media. I am capable of seeing and understanding what is happening to this country. I see it everyday.

I wrote of the polarization of this country. The radicals of the right and left are so loud that no one else can be heard.

If Bush gets elected the Republican party will put it’s stamp on a form of government that has the possibility of becoming quite repressive.
Eight of nine Supreme Court judges are over the age of 65.
How far away from a 2/3 majority are the Republicans in Congress?

The changes that could happen as a result of this election will be felt for years to come.

Rocky:

I understand your viewpoint, but I wonder if its not just the way the voters are allowing it to be. Or perhaps wanting it to be.

I don’t see the religious right being in control of the country. I see it having a measure of power, but I see a strong measure of power in other sectors as well. Were the religious right in power, would we truly see the Pledge of Allegiance being questioned, or the 10 Commandments being disallowed on court room property? Would we see the dramatic rise in the sexual nature of television and movies?

The Supreme Court is always an issue. Many thought it was headed for change during the current Presidency, but there has been no change. Should Kerry be elected, the Court will likely move strongly to the left. It can never be static, since there are 9 votes. It will end up leaning one way or the other, which is how it was designed to be.

I personally don’t find talk radio that offensive, and I worry about preventing free speech, as I’m sure you do as well. To limit someone like Limbaugh would do just that. Conservative radio has been more popular than liberal radio, for whatever reason. It has more to do with inflaming the base than it does reaching out to those in the middle. And it really is just entertainment…at least to me. Perhaps others take it more seriously, but nonetheless, its a freedom of speech issue. I dont suggest we prevent Al Franken from speaking, or Michael Moore from spreading his slanted viewpoint, nor would I suggest removing blowhards like Limbaugh.

Our country is governed at some level by the voting public. While often lackadaisical, the voting public chooses who is in office. I’d prefer to see some level of term limits, since the re-election rate of incumbents is insanely high.

What kind of steps are you hoping to enact in order to make our society less scary at this point. Or are you hoping that it will adjust itself, which is perhaps how it should be done. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks for the candid exchange of thoughts.

Rather, it is intended to convey that when we pray to God for wisdom, as AP admitted many Presidents have, that we get some sort of an answer back. A prayer for wisdom, with no answer, isn’t worth all that much, in my opinion.

Whoa, there pardner. First of all, the word “acknowledged” would be more accurate than “admitted”. I don’t admit to anything. :)

Second, to pray that you have the wisdom to make the right decision is not the same as praying for an answer. It doesn’t require a response. If it’s not a political calculation, and Bush really does hear God talking to him… Well, I think there’s a clinical term for that.

AP: You may be many things, but wuss aint one of em. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which things you ARE….lol

I am very aware, and totally comfortable with the things I am, jbod. But that’s not what this forum is about. :)

Our country is governed at some level by the voting public. While often lackadaisical, the voting public chooses who is in office.

That’s a good point. I think the left got lazy ‘cause things were going so well under Clinton’s aegis. Sure the Democratic Party skewed a little more to the center, but I think that can be attributed to the natural maturing process of the hippies. The Republican Party - they ended up somewhere way out in right field. Maybe someone else has a theory for that.

In any case, I think the pendulum is swinging back to the middle.

Joe,
I don’t know what would make our society less scary.
The only thing that will help this country from itself is an attack of common sense.
We do things in this country just because we can. Unfortunatly, just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.
Thanks for the discourse.

AP:

Got a good laugh from your post…Thanks. Didnt mean to insinuate anything with the word “admitted”. I actually changed the word twice from something else but couldnt get my mind to find the word I wanted—-which was probably the word you suggested. And while you are comfortable with what you are, I’ll leave the details alone.

The left may have gotten a bit lazy, or perhaps the right got lazy prior to that. The pendulum does go back and forth, but I don’t know that I agree that its on its way back to center at this point. Most seem to think its heading further right, though that issue should be decided by November 3, depending on who gets elected.

AP, when I pray, I hope for some level of response. It may be clear or indirect, but if I pray for wisdom, I hope to see some level of knowing whether I got some or not. The answer might be in how much wisdom I use in the eventual circumstance, and there’s really no way to measure whether I’m my usual idiotic self (note the falsely humble self deprecation) or a wildly brilliant and insightful person (this would be the real me).

Everyone has a different view of religion, God, and how it all comes together. I happen to believe that just as there is only one answer to the equation of 1+1, so too is there only one true God. He might manifest himself in different forms, but the relationship with him is the fundamental issue, in my opinion.

Joe,
It’s not my understanding of Christianity that’s the problem, it’s my understanding of Christians.
I am an agnostic, I spent my formative years in a school being taught by Franciscan nuns. I went to prep school where I was taught by the Holy Ghost fathers.
I don’t need to be lectured about Christianity. Most Christians are the least Christlike of any people in my experience. Some, not all, will hose you in a heartbeat, and then pray for forgiveness on Sunday, then they claim the moral high ground.
The right in this country needs to realize that they share this country with many people, of many faiths. Their veiw is not the only right veiw.

Posted by: Rocky at October 27, 2004 12:20 PM

Or as someone once said,Christianity is a great idea, pity it’s never been tried!