RuntheDamnBall Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Without a Doubt A pretty eye-opening article. The second page story about the Sweden/Switzerland mixup is particularly frightening. I know some will discount this before reading it as it's the Times, but it is a very in-depth article and it raises some points that should be discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Without a DoubtA pretty eye-opening article. The second page story about the Sweden/Switzerland mixup is particularly frightening. I know some will discount this before reading it as it's the Times, but it is a very in-depth article and it raises some points that should be discussed. 80351[/snapback] You know, there's one reason why I HATE the NY Times. They don't even ATTEMPT to put a veneer of objectivity on their writing. They are blatant in their partisan allegiance to the old order of elitist east coast liberals. They ARE the liberal establishment, and proud of it. Yet they have the GALL to claim to be the "paper of record". Rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 You know, there's one reason why I HATE the NY Times. They don't even ATTEMPT to put a veneer of objectivity on their writing. They are blatant in their partisan allegiance to the old order of elitist east coast liberals. They ARE the liberal establishment, and proud of it. Yet they have the GALL to claim to be the "paper of record". Rubbish. 80373[/snapback] Did you read it? Don't you think the quotes from Rev. Jim Wallis, a man who helped Bush in his spiritual journey, are at the least revealing? It's the substance and not the style I want to hear about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Did you read it? Don't you think the quotes from Rev. Jim Wallis, a man who helped Bush in his spiritual journey, are at the least revealing? It's the substance and not the style I want to hear about. 80379[/snapback] Actually, i've already red the whole "Bush" series. There's like 5 articles and not ONE is complimentary to the president. It's blatant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 Actually, i've already red the whole "Bush" series. There's like 5 articles and not ONE is complimentary to the president. It's blatant. 80410[/snapback] The media are not supposed to be complimentary. They are supposed to shed light on a situation and reveal to the reader. Regardless, Suskind is very complimentary about the president's people skills. What this article addresses, and what you're missing, is that there is an unprecedented veil of secrecy around this administration. Bush and Co. proceed headlong without any need for information that may weaken their case -- truth be damned. Bush has a need for yes-men everywhere to provide a backdrop of "certainty" and resolute leadership, whether in the cabinet or on the campaign stage, and this is troubling. He is so certain that there can be no other way to see an issue, no matter the evidence, that it could get us into deep trouble. I don't think you've addressed that yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 The media are not supposed to be complimentary. They are supposed to shed light on a situation and reveal to the reader. Regardless, Suskind is very complimentary about the president's people skills. What this article addresses, and what you're missing, is that there is an unprecedented veil of secrecy around this administration. Bush and Co. proceed headlong without any need for information that may weaken their case -- truth be damned. Bush has a need for yes-men everywhere to provide a backdrop of "certainty" and resolute leadership, whether in the cabinet or on the campaign stage, and this is troubling. He is so certain that there can be no other way to see an issue, no matter the evidence, that it could get us into deep trouble. I don't think you've addressed that yet. 80435[/snapback] A lot of this issue has to do with the muddying of the moral waters caused by the left wing of the baby boom generation. See, those people were of the school of thought that there is no right or wrong, only shades of gray. That view, IMO and in the president's opinion is WRONG. There are absolutes in this world. There is good and evil, right and wrong. Evil is evil and right is right. So, moral certitude and absoulte belief are very important in today's world and unfortunately, Kerry has neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 There are absolutes in this world. There is good and evil, right and wrong. Evil is evil and right is right. So, moral certitude and absoulte belief are very important in today's world and unfortunately, Kerry has neither. 80456[/snapback] The problem is, if you only believe in rights and wrongs, and the other side only believes in rights and wrongs, and they are polar opposites, you risk empowering the other side with any action you take. If, though believing you are right, you look for the sources of an opposition's rise to power -- poverty, disenfranchisment, corrupt governments, rushes to judgement -- with this understanding you can begin to neutralize it, while taking steps necessary to protect yourself. To use a medical metaphor, Bush wants to saw off legs when localized medicine may work effectively, and he doesn't want to hear that the medicine might work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Actually, i've already red the whole "Bush" series. There's like 5 articles and not ONE is complimentary to the president. It's blatant. 80410[/snapback] Kind of like your posts about Kerry, always predictably and unflaggingly negative. Should I ignore everything you say about Kerry because you never compliment him or should I simply address the substance of your opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 The problem is, if you only believe in rights and wrongs, and the other side only believes in rights and wrongs, and they are polar opposites, you risk empowering the other side with any action you take. If, though believing you are right, you look for the sources of an opposition's rise to power -- poverty, disenfranchisment, corrupt governments, rushes to judgement -- with this understanding you can begin to neutralize it, while taking steps necessary to protect yourself. To use a medical metaphor, Bush wants to saw off legs when localized medicine may work effectively, and he doesn't want to hear that the medicine might work. 80512[/snapback] This belief in pure absolutes is the cause of many wars over the years. The crusades were our god is right and others is wrong, hitler was the arayan race is good and all others are bad. Belief in one view without consideration for other views is a dangerous way to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 The problem is, if you only believe in rights and wrongs, and the other side only believes in rights and wrongs, and they are polar opposites, you risk empowering the other side with any action you take. If, though believing you are right, you look for the sources of an opposition's rise to power -- poverty, disenfranchisment, corrupt governments, rushes to judgement -- with this understanding you can begin to neutralize it, while taking steps necessary to protect yourself. To use a medical metaphor, Bush wants to saw off legs when localized medicine may work effectively, and he doesn't want to hear that the medicine might work. 80512[/snapback] I don't see any difference in the mantra of the Democrats, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 I don't see any difference in the mantra of the Democrats, either. 80666[/snapback] Well, believe me, I'll be working hard alongside fellow Americans, whichever side wins the presidency, to get that point across. Returning to the original point, I feel that Kerry would listen to someone with another point of view. Bush won't, and for that reason his is not a solution but a small plug in a cracking dam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Well, believe me, I'll be working hard alongside fellow Americans, whichever side wins the presidency, to get that point across. Returning to the original point, I feel that Kerry would listen to someone with another point of view. Bush won't, and for that reason his is not a solution but a small plug in a cracking dam. 80685[/snapback] Senator Kerry will listen as long as the solution has something to do with even more government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 Senator Kerry will listen as long as the solution has something to do with even more government. 80688[/snapback] We can play back and forth on this, but Bush has introduced more government programs than anybody. He brags about more spending on programs when it suits him, and talks about cutting them when it suits him. I fail to see how Bush is better here. In fact, he isn't, because Kerry has at least pushed for balanced budgets during his Senatorial tenure. Bush has thrown fiscal solvency out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Senator Kerry will listen as long as the solution has something to do with even more government. 80688[/snapback] 800,000 new government jobs since GB became president. The solution for both sides is more government. We need less government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 We can play back and forth on this, but Bush has introduced more government programs than anybody. I fail to see how Bush is better here. In fact, he isn't, because Kerry has at least pushed for balanced budgets during his Senatorial tenure. Bush has thrown fiscal solvency out the window. 80695[/snapback] I've never said that. The Republican Party disgusts me because they campaign like Libertarians and govern like liberals. George Bush has been a horrible President in that regard and isn't likely to change over the next 4 years. John Kerry has been a fiscal disaster as a Senator. In 1986, a Balanced Budget Amendment was voted on in the Senate. It needed 2/3rds majority to pass. John Kerry voted against it. It failed by one vote. In his Senate career, John Kerry voted AGAINST Balanced Budget Amendments FIVE times. I have yet to find a vote for a Constitutional BBA that he's voted yes on, which tells me he's not being truthful on the subject and has voted for legislation that wouldn't have Constitutional authority. John Kerry's Record, According to NTU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 800,000 new government jobs since GB became president. The solution for both sides is more government. We need less government. 80703[/snapback] The funny part is how few people are willing to say that but continue to vote for the same parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 The funny part is how few people are willing to say that but continue to vote for the same parties. 80715[/snapback] That is because the system is broken and most people only vote for the lesser of two evils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 That is because the system is broken and most people only vote for the lesser of two evils. 80725[/snapback] Welcome to "self perpetuation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 I've never said that. The Republican Party disgusts me because they campaign like Libertarians and govern like liberals. George Bush has been a horrible President in that regard and isn't likely to change over the next 4 years. John Kerry has been a fiscal disaster as a Senator. In 1986, a Balanced Budget Amendment was voted on in the Senate. It needed 2/3rds majority to pass. John Kerry voted against it. It failed by one vote. In his Senate career, John Kerry voted AGAINST Balanced Budget Amendments FIVE times. I have yet to find a vote for a Constitutional BBA that he's voted yes on, which tells me he's not being truthful on the subject and has voted for legislation that wouldn't have Constitutional authority. John Kerry's Record, According to NTU 80712[/snapback] Darin, I don't see any balanced budget info in this link -- am I misreading it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 That is because the system is broken and most people only vote for the lesser of two evils. 80725[/snapback] Actually, the system is not broken, it is so refined that it is in control. It would take far more guts than most of our elected officials have for anyone who gained power using the system to truly reform it. It's a catch-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts