Sickening

OCCOM BILL wrote:

He's impressive as hell, aint he?

Einherjar, it's essentially the same message as Bush's... he just delivers it better.

Not quite, Bush goes to great length to paint everything starkly black and white, insisting that there is only one side to the argument. I also get the impression, though I may be confusing him with the bulk of his adherents, that he is insinuating that all who disagree with him are evil terroristloving Saddam apologists. People tend to respond to "you're either with us or against us" type ultimatums with hostility, and when black and white pictures are painted people who would be inclined to maintain both sides of the argument tend to rally to defend the vilified position.

I do agree that the basic argument is similar, and that the greatest difference between the two lies in delivery, which was what I was getting at about being approached as a thinking human being. I'm much more inclined to consider an argument acknowledging the nuances. Actually I like to think I consider every argument, but black and white arguments tend to trigger kneejerk reactions. Acknowledging that there are nuances, and that sound arguments can be made to the contrary tend to dispose of the kneejerk reaction, and also leaves his argument much less vunerable to attack. Actually refuting an argument, (especially a valid one) is far more challenging than simply presenting a cogent dissenting opinion.

0 Replies

I was doubly humbled by the raw courage (as I saw it) of Blair a couple of weeks ago when he agreed to move his troops north in Iraq, knowing all along the peril it places him in for reelection.

And...although President Bush isn't a great orator and hasn't the skill in this area of Tony Blair, I still think his heart is in the right place. I remember his speaking to the 9/11 families - struggling for words and struggling to contain his emotion. He's not a loser Smile

0 Replies

Yes, yes Einherjar... in other words; it's essentially the same message as Bush's... he just delivers it better. :wink: I understand why you think less of him. Most everyone does.

JW, I didn't say he was a loser... I said he was a loser compared to Tony Blair. Tony fields hostile questions from the house of commons with relative ease compare to George just trying to deliver a prepared speech. I wasn't slighting Bush so much as, well, I'm that impressed with Blair.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

... people who would be inclined to maintain both sides of the argument tend to rally to defend the vilified position.

But if people "... rally to defend the vilified position" and do so in the sort of "kneejerk" reactionary manner you've described, how is that an endorsement of these folks as "thinking human beings"? That sounds remarkably like the kind of thinking the pro-Kerry folks have been accusing the Bush supporters of utilizing throughout this last campaign.

It is this insistence by some of "maintaining both sides of the argument" that is most disturbing, at least on the issue of terrorism. As you point out, Bush said, "You are either with us or against us," and clearly stated there is no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism. Sitting on the fence, searching for nuance, doesn't cut it in my book. For me, that was the single biggest difference between these two candidates, and made Bush stand out clearly above Kerry. *But I suppose I'm just one of the MANY clueless idiots that swallowed the Republican party-line when I voted for Bush. [/sarcasm]

Having said that, I fully agree that delivery can make a difference when hearing a message, and there's no question that Blair is an incredible orator. I watched him present his speech to Congress in 2003, and it was truly mesmerizing. Bush has delivered some powerful speeches as well, but he is most assuredly not known for his ability to turn a phrase.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Yes, yes Einherjar... in other words; it's essentially the same message as Bush's... he just delivers it better. :wink: I understand why you think less of him. Most everyone does.

Agreed

OCCOM BILL wrote:

JW, I didn't say he was a loser... I said he was a loser compared to Tony Blair.

Alow me, BUSH IS A LOSER. PERIOD

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Tony fields hostile questions from the house of commons with relative ease compare to George just trying to deliver a prepared speech. I wasn't slighting Bush so much as, well, I'm that impressed with Blair.

I'm a little puzzled by the scripted aspect of american politics, I've yet to see either presidential candidate fielding hostile questions, and the election is over already!!! I figured this was the work of the Bush administration, to level the playingfield for Bush. Don't your politicians ever field hostile questions?

0 Replies

O'Bill - I know. I'm feeling a bit mischievous today, so threw in that last comment, knowing how irritating my admiration for Dubya is to most on this forum Smile

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Not quite, Bush goes to great length to paint everything starkly black and white, insisting that there is only one side to the argument.

I think that part of this is Bush's personality; part of it political strategy. What constituency was he attempting to woo? The fundamentalists, who basically live in a black and white, good and evil, yer with us or agin us world...........And it worked!

Remember, Bush himself is no Einstein. He is getting a lot of his coaching from Karl Rove, who is a master planner extrordinaire. His entire approach is being very well orchestrated.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
... people who would be inclined to maintain both sides of the argument tend to rally to defend the vilified position.

But if people "... rally to defend the vilified position" and do so in the sort of "kneejerk" reactionary manner you've described, how is that an endorsement of these folks as "thinking human beings"? That sounds remarkably like the kind of thinking the pro-Kerry folks have been accusing the Bush supporters of utilizing throughout this last campaign.

Blair didn't say that, I did. Blair is the one who approaches people as thinking human beings, not me. (or rather while I ofthen aproach people as thinking human beings I rarely refer to them as such)

Anyway, if you consider two conflicting perspectives of an issue to both be valid, and someone appears to dismiss one argument offhand while embracing the other, won't your natural inclination be to take the opposing position making the argument that has not yet been made? Or would you be inclined to just join in cherishing that one argument?

Quote:

It is this insistence by some of "maintaining both sides of the argument" that is most disturbing, at least on the issue of terrorism. As you point out, Bush said, "You are either with us or against us," and clearly stated there is no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism. Sitting on the fence, searching for nuance, doesn't cut it in my book. For me, that was the single biggest difference between these two candidates, and made Bush stand out clearly above Kerry. *But I suppose I'm just one of the MANY clueless idiots that swallowed the Republican party-line when I voted for Bush. [/sarcasm]

I agree that one has to comitt to one side of the argument, but one can do that while recognising that the other side of the argument has merit as well.

Quote:

Having said that, I fully agree that delivery can make a difference when hearing a message, and there's no question that Blair is an incredible orator. I watched him present his speech to Congress in 2003, and it was truly mesmerizing. Bush has delivered some powerfull speeches as well, but he is most assuredly not known for his ability to turn a phrase.

I agree, and as I was trying to express earlier Blair delivers his message without ailienating those who might be inclined to disagree with him. With his delivery they too will consider his argument on its own merrit. AND he tends to make sense.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

I agree that one has to comitt to one side of the argument, but one can do that while recognising that the other side of the argument has merit as well.

Yes, one must commit to one side of this particular argument (terrorism), and clearly there is an opposite side. You choose to be opposed to terrorism, or you choose to be in favor of terrorism. I've chosen my side ....

Now, I agree that with many issues you can choose a side and recognize the merits of the opposite position, but I don't see the merits of the opposite side as it regards this issue. So I disagree with your above-stated premise.

Plainly stated, my "side" is I'm opposed to terrorism; at the moment, I'm not inclined to see the merits of being in favor of terrorism.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Yes, one must commit to one side of this particular argument (terrorism), and clearly there is an opposite side. You choose to be opposed to terrorism, or you choose to be in favor of terrorism. I've chosen my side ....

Ah, but I think that there is a third side to this issue. That is, those people who do not believe that terrrorism is very important in the scheme of things, or has been said, "merely a nuisance"!

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Yes, one must commit to one side of this particular argument (terrorism), and clearly there is an opposite side. You choose to be opposed to terrorism, or you choose to be in favor of terrorism. I've chosen my side ....

Ah, but I think that there is a third side to this issue. That is, those people who do not believe that terrrorism is very important in the scheme of things, or has been said, "merely a nuisance"!

Yes ... some of whom have shown themselves to be the type of people very comfortable straddling both sides of any given issue.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
I agree that one has to comitt to one side of the argument, but one can do that while recognising that the other side of the argument has merit as well.

Yes, one must commit to one side of this particular argument (terrorism), and clearly there is an opposite side. You choose to be opposed to terrorism, or you choose to be in favor of terrorism. I've chosen my side ....

Now, I agree that with many issues you can choose a side and recognize the merits of the opposite position, but I don't see the merits of the opposite side as it regards this issue. So I disagree with your above-stated premise.

Plainly stated, my "side" is I'm opposed to terrorism; at the moment, I'm not inclined to see the merits of being in favor of terrorism.

And the strawmen run amock.

The issue at hand is wether or not to Invade Iraq, and arguments against invading Iraq do have merit. The only person I have seen endorsing terrorism on this forum is OCCOM BILL, and he agrees with you regarding Iraq. Oh, and his argument has some merrit as well.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ah, but I think that there is a third side to this issue. That is, those people who do not believe that terrrorism is very important in the scheme of things, or has been said, "merely a nuisance"!

I agree!

Let me ask you conservatives a question: do you know what the difference between being wary and being scared is?

A pre-emptive answer for you, in illustrative format: The average American should be wary of future terrorist attacks. But their leaders want them to be scared.

Terrorism is such a minor problem, it's not even funny. Sure, we had a bad attack; Such things happen from time to time. We need to prevent them as much as possible. But, at the expense of freedom? At the point to where our government is focused upon it? All this does is add legitimacy to what was once merely a nuisiance....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

O'Bill - I know. I'm feeling a bit mischievous today, so threw in that last comment, knowing how irritating my admiration for Dubya is to most on this forum

LOL. That'll prolly do it every time! Laughing

Einherjar wrote:

I'm a little puzzled by the scripted aspect of american politics, I've yet to see either presidential candidate fielding hostile questions, and the election is over already!!! I figured this was the work of the Bush administration, to level the playingfield for Bush. Don't your politicians ever field hostile questions?

Our elected Kings decide for themselves whether or not and how much they'll expose themselves to Press Conferences... which is as close as they ever get to the gauntlet Blair has to run regularly in the House of Commons. Bush is among the worst at it, so he ducks them the most... but there's nothing unique in that he never has to answer the hard questions. That, unfortunately, is the norm here and has been for as long as I've been alive. If the questions get REAL HARD, the answers are deemed necessarily secret for NATIONAL SECURITY and we might not learn them for 75 years. It's an old crock.

Also: Your I don't like the message because I don't like the messenger argument shouldn't be coming from someone as sharp as you. I agree with the point because plenty of idiots can't separate the two but you shouldn't be having such trouble. Idea

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Yes, one must commit to one side of this particular argument (terrorism), and clearly there is an opposite side. You choose to be opposed to terrorism, or you choose to be in favor of terrorism. I've chosen my side ....

Ah, but I think that there is a third side to this issue. That is, those people who do not believe that terrrorism is very important in the scheme of things, or has been said, "merely a nuisance"!

We shouldn't oversimplify this. You can be completely against terrorism, and not support Bush's strategy--there are many ways to approach the same goal. Both the "with us or a against us" sound bite, and the "nuisance" sound bite add nothing to the discussion.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

We shouldn't oversimplify this. You can be completely against terrorism, and not support Bush's strategy--there are many ways to approach the same goal. Both the "with us or a against us" sound bite, and the "nuisance" sound bite add nothing to the discussion.

No, I don't think that it adds nothing. It does lay out some parameters. Within those, one can engage in a very complex discussion regarding the appropriateness of any and all approaches to the problem at hand.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

All this does is add legitimacy to what was once merely a nuisiance....

Cycloptichorn

And I thought you had previously reached your personal plateau for making idiotic statements. Those 3,000 people would have been 3 million if Bin Ladin could have managed it. Rolling Eyes

Einherjar When did I endorse terrorism? Confused

0 Replies

Well, ok, I'll say it. I'm for terrorism. That's right I favor it. It's very economical with a minimum amount of casualties for the perpetrating party. Look at all the bang you get for your buck!

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by the scripted aspect of american politics, I've yet to see either presidential candidate fielding hostile questions, and the election is over already!!! I figured this was the work of the Bush administration, to level the playingfield for Bush. Don't your politicians ever field hostile questions?
Our elected Kings decide for themselves whether or not and how much they'll expose themselves to Press Conferences... which is as close as they ever get to the gauntlet Blair has to run regularly in the House of Commons. Bush is among the worst at it, so he ducks them the most... but there's nothing unique in that he never has to answer the hard questions. That, unfortunately, is the norm here and has been for as long as I've been alive. If the questions get REAL HARD, the answers are deemed necessarily secret for NATIONAL SECURITY and we might not learn them for 75 years. It's an old crock.

Hmm, does this go for any hard question?

Q: Mr. President, if Social Security is to be privatised, and Social Security payments diverted to private companies, how is current SS benefits to be financed?

A: Ehh.. uh.. I can't tell you that, uh.. national security you know.

Quote:

Also: Your I don't like the message because I don't like the messenger argument shouldn't be coming from someone as sharp as you. I agree with the point because plenty of idiots can't separate the two but you shouldn't be having such trouble.

Did I say that? I hope I didn't. I definitely don't mean that. I do consider ultimatums and black and white imagery to be part of Bush's message though. I understand you consider that an inherant quality of the messenger?

0 Replies

Don't be retarded, Bill.

3000 people dying is a huge deal; but 30k die every year in car accidents, and you don't see us getting all up in arms about it.

over 100k due to smoking per year
another 250k due to heart disease.

People are scared of terrorism because it's flashy, but it's hardly the only problem we face as a society, and not even the major killer of Americans, by far.... a hundred times as many people have died in the last ten years from various controlable, avoidable domestic reasons as have from terrorism.

ANY objective person would say that terrorism is a problem, yes, but not a major one for our society. BUT! It is easy to scare people about terrorists, not so easy to scare them about cholesterol, so we've latched on to it as our 'external threat'.....

The focus on terrorism adds legitimacy to those who would pursue it. A better response would have been to keep truckin' along with democracy, and instead take a more criminal justice approach to the issue.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know