Usama Bin Ladin goes to bat for John Kerry. Why?

http://www.mcall.com/news/elections/la-na-osama14oct14,0,6377806.story

http://www.democrats.org/exaggeration/

Watch the video, Baldimo, and enjoy....

Has anybody actually kept count as to how many times OCCOM BILL has used the term "idiotic" in his posts?

It doesn't help much in promoting his arguments, whatever the hell they might be....

I'm also continuously fascinated that the neoconservatives cannot fend for themselves in finding such valuable information as Bush actually saying that he is not that concerned with bin Laden.

Actually, I consider it quite lazy on their part, and it is a clear indication that they are not doing their homework.

Very, very sad indeed...

http://mfile.akamai.com/8082/rm/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/video/exaggeration/exaggeration.ram

I just read this thread a second time (my custom when I've offended someone by accident) to see what I may have missed.

Nimh, I do hope you saw this post.

I also meant to respond to this one earlier, but didn't, so I will now.


I had no idea that "ABB" was such an insult... and I still don't understand why it is. It seems half the liberals I know volunteered the term as descriptive of their positions before Kerry won the nomination. My sister and brother-in-law, both brilliant, hyper-educated UW Madison Liberals proudly wear the term ABB like it's a badge of honor... and one that only a fool would go without. Both are completely dumbfounded that I haven't seen the light myself. Neither of them are particularly keen on Kerry for Kerry's sake, though they do seem to view him with less disdain than I do Bush. About the only thing we all agree on is that Edwards is a scumbag... but none of us expect him to be more of a factor than Al Gore was anyway.

I define the term ABB as: whoever the Democrats were going to field Vs. George Bush... from the time before Kerry was selected. No more, no less. Realistically, that was a very narrow field. Any reasoning that came from any A2K regular's standard ideology common to that field was not going to be helpful to my quest, because I'm already as well schooled in each of your positions as you are mine. Therefore, I was looking for something other than ABB reasoning. I hereby extend my apology to you or anyone else who may have been insulted by my use that term as well.

Ps. Never be afraid to criticize me Soz. I respect you and it's good for my character.

ABB insulting?

Well, it - (and many of your words appear to do the same - have a look at them again Bill) - implies a certain mindlessness - as does much of the exceedingly offensive rhetoric on this thread. ( I am sure there is offensive rhetoric from both sides, but I, naturally, observe more of it from your side).

It is sad that so much supid demonizing is going on - however, as I said at the very beginning Bill, I think what I am afraid I consider the intellectual dishonesty of your title set the scene - as does the current electoral situation.

I would think Bin Laden would be laughing his head off to see American adherents of two very similar parties tearing each others' guts out over his tape,

Well done Osama.

But good on you for having the guts to review things.

You know I've seen and read all kinds of rhetorical hate before like some of the material presented (We can kill your children....etc.) but it was from the KKK or the Army of God or some other wacko group who saw themselves as the saviors of mankind. Neo-Nazis come to mind as well.

Just because these groups held themselves and their Bible as the only way to salvation didn't lead me to think that all those who follow the Bible are like them. There are radicals of every stripe in every corner of the world, but they are on the edges of civilization and it is our task to find and make alliances with those who see the world from the middle.

I have every confidence that such alliances are possible, but only if we stop seeing every Christian fundamentalist as a rigid unreachable and every Arab as a Muslim terrorist.

Joe

The headline of this thread is an insult to all Americans. There is no way thinking Americans would construe Kerry and bin Laden as being on the same page philisophically or politically. It's just a last desperate smear in a race too tight to call.

Bill, I kind of addressed that already:



ABB in and of itself, whatever. I addressed there how your usage of it became insulting.

I came up with this elaborate theory on thinkers vs. feelers, I'm gonna wake up a bit more and then try to get it down...

btw, when did your sis + her husband graduate? Maybe I know 'em!

OK, the discussion has gone kind of all over the place, but I want to follow up on what I said about fundamentally different approaches, and how each side perceives insult + thinks the other side is wrong.

I'll say for purposes of trying to illustrate this idea that we have two posters, Thinker and Feeler. (Both are a simplification, neither is an actual poster.) Thinker arrives at his positions by analysis of facts, with a lesser emphasis on gut feelings. Feeler arrives at his positions by gut feelings, with a lesser emphasis on analysis of facts.

Feeler thinks Thinker is a bit of an emotionless automaton (that word was chosen purposely), who is elitist and a little disconnected from "just folks." Thinker thinks Feeler is bright but crippled by the need to like a candidate personally.

Each extrapolates from their own position and puts the others' position in their own terms. Feeler, not trusting the candidate, thinks that Thinker is making justifications, using that high-falutin' intellect to gloss over imperfections while ignoring his gut -- in Feeler's terms, a good thing. Or, again in feeling terms, Feeler thinks Thinker hates the incumbent so much that there is a knee-jerk reaction against the incumbent and for the challenger. Thinker, in thinking terms, is confused by the lack of consistency and logic in Feeler's position, the fact that Feeler is putting so much stock in his gut feeling -- in Thinker's terms, not a good thing.

Obviously nimh and O'Bill are the models here, but I added in some other people and tried to get both perspectives. I thought of it when you, O'Bill, said something about not being moved by any of nimh's answers re: Kerry. To me, that was a weird thing to say. "Moved"? Who cares? When you examine the facts, what do the facts tell you?

Then I started thinking about how if the terms are fundamentally different, you and nimh can keep talking past each other (though, again, I wholeheartedly agree with all that nimh said.)

What's the name of that site where you get your avatars?

To stay in your picture -- how about when a guy is in multiple fights at the same time? If you hit him now, which one of the other guys are you endorsing? In my opinion, OBL is much less obsessed with the United States than Americans like to think he is. He is obsessed the Middle East, and he wants to liberate it in the spirit of his idea of liberty. He sees Bush as an enemy because he's the president of the United States and as such is opposed to Al Quaeda. He doesn't see him as an enemy because he's a Republican as opposed to John Kerry's Democrats.

So I would agree that he Osama Bin Laden is trying to bat against George Bush, but that wasn't the question O'Bill had asked. He had asked "why" -- not whether -- OBL is batting for John Kerry. And to that my response remains "wrong premise -- he doesn't".


The latest word I heard about this comes from a Republican pollster interviewed by CNN yesterday. (Sorry, can't remember his name.) He didn't offer evidence from polls, but expected that the tapes would confirm Republicans in believing it is dangerous to change presidents in the middle of a war, would confirm Democrats in believing that George faught the war on terror incompetently, and wouldn't have much effect on swing voters.

The pollster made sense to me. So my answer to this part of your post is, again, that I don't buy your premise. The tape probably doesn't have the effect of strengthening Kerry. But I can certainly understand why Republicans would wish to have a clearly bad guy associated with their political opponents shortly before a close election.

Precisely.

He's declared WAR on the US, Thomas. How much more obsessed can he be?

Like Bush is obsessed with Iraq, you mean?

revel:



They are all original. One of the few perks of being a graphic designer.

I believe both would have earned bachelor's by around 1989, but kept going. When they met, I think both had the plan to keep going forever. It was the knowledge they sought, not the degrees, though they inevitably earned advanced degrees. Between them; they speak a dozen languages and I know at one point my sister fancied herself working in a foreign embassy for a career.

Considering your level of active participation in causes, Soz, I wouldn't be surprised a bit, if you knew them. (Even despite the huge size of the school). I don't think it would be appropriate to "out them" as they may decide to become members... if indeed they're not already and just quiet about it. I have had them look at the place.

I'm going to get back to you on the meat of your commentary later. That's going to take more time.

By the way I'm reconsidering some of my commentary. I wrote a while ago that I have these Great Ideas at night that don't really stand up to the light of day. This was one I had last night and then wanted to get out of my head first thing in the morning -- but I'm less happy about it a few hours on.

Oh, definitely don't say their names, but does sound like we at least crossed paths. I was at UW '89-93, then again for master's 94-96.

puts you in the thinker-feeler category soz

In one definition, "obsessed" means: To preoccupy the mind of excessively.

Since our military remains actively engaged in Iraq, and might be for some time, I would hope the President would be obsessed with the conflict. Wouldn't you?