Close

Page 1 of 4 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 108
  1. #1
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7681

    Question Kerry's body language scares me

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    Every time I see this guy speak, his body language -- his gestures and postures -- just scream out "You cannot

    trust me!".

    I am just blown away by how powerful his body language is. I suspect he is being overcoached in his

    gestures. They don't seem natural at all.

    Whatever people think of Bush, I haven't heard many people express

    doubt about his sincerity. He truly believes in what he says.

    I just have this recurring image of living through

    another 8 years of Clintonesque scandals with Kerry.

    Why do the Democrats go for these scary candidates like

    Mondale, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry? Are there no honest people left on the liberal side of the isle, or are they all

    TOO honest to get up there and try to deceive the American people?


    Growing up as a teenager in Georgia, I

    didn't much care for Jimmy Carter as President, but at least he was sincere about his feelings. (Which is not to

    say that some of the Georgia newspapers didn't brand him as the biggest liar since Cain, but he was very honest

    about his beliefs.)

  2. #2
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Friendly1
    Whatever

    people think of Bush, I haven't heard many people express doubt about his sincerity. He truly believes in what he

    says.
    That's what scares people.

  3. #3
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Good observations, Friendly.



    I rarely watch TV so hadn't noticed his body language. It reinforces my basic fear that we cannot trust either

    candidate. Disappointing.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Phero Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,661
    Rep Power
    8013

    Default none

    Friendly1, I'd like your

    take on Cheney's body language in that particular debate.

    Also, life was better for me under Clinton: gas

    was $1.30; the stockmarket was booming; there wasn't any major war with our GIs getting killed daily; employment

    was good; health care costs hadn't spiralled out of control; NORAD/CIA/US Air Force/FAA had never let us down

    before (strange, huh?); France and Germany were reliable allies and friends; North Korea and Iran had no nukes; the

    Israeli/Palestinian conflict was simmering but not raging out of control; our military wasn't stretched thin

    beyond danger level; the National Guard guys and gals had their usual one weekend a month of socializing (and

    training!) and were available for hurricane/disaster relief; airlines were making money and not laying off

    people/shutting down pension funds; and - seemingly no hope is in sight to boot!!! Do I think Kerry would do a

    better job - no.

  5. #5
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7681

    Default

    I did not watch the

    Cheney/Edwards debate. Sorry. I don't have any new opinions about Cheney, although he has always sort of spooked

    me.

    Politically, I am middle of the road. I like certain thing the Democrats advocate and certain things the

    Republicans advocate. I think they're all way too extreme for my tastes.

    The Clinton years were indifferent

    for me. But right now, I could use a change in the economy, and I don't think we're going to get one any time

    soon.

    Kerry MIGHT bring that on, but at what cost? Bush might bring that on, but at what cost?

    Presidential

    elections are always a pain in the neck for me. You never hear the whole story from either side and I am just sick

    and tired of the acrimonious attacks back and forth.

    But if I had to vote for someone today, it would be Bush.

    At least he doesn't leave me wondering about what comes next. I think it's pretty clear to everyone we're in

    this for the long haul as far as our involvement across the globe goes. Kerry can't change that. But if he stands

    before our nation and says, "This is the way things are", I want to feel like he at least believes what he is

    saying, even if it turns out not to be true later on.

  6. #6
    Phero Guru
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,661
    Rep Power
    8013

    Default none

    good points and I often

    agree.

  7. #7
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    The issue with gas prices is a

    real one and is probably directly related to Bush and company. It very much looks like the same kind of tricks the

    energy companies were pulling during the energy crises in California a few years back.

    The stock market was a

    false bubble that many people knew was going to burst. It was largely related to the dot-com fiasco but there were

    other factors involved as well. My broker warned me while Clinton was in office to get out of the market, that it

    was due for a crash. The number of jobs lost due to that was and is beyond the control of the president or the

    government in general. Off-shoring is one of the other major contributors to technology job loses and that was going

    on well before Clinton left office and was, if not condoned by his administration, at least a blind eye was turned

    to it. I could easily argue that the tax dodges that encourage companies to go off-shore are in large part

    associated with the democrats, along with the higher taxes the so-called progressives are so cheerful about that the

    large corporations are trying to dodge.

    I don't know about where you are but American Airlines was laying

    people off here long before Clinton left office, it was part of a trend that started during his tenure.

    The

    issue of war is a twisted one. The planning and preperation involved in the WTC attack took place during Clinton's

    administration. The hijackers were allowed into the US to train to fly under Clinton. That is when the real failure

    of our intellegence and security services took place. The WTC attack would have led to war regardless of who was

    president. That's not to say I agree with invading Iraq, I don't. If we had spent $100,000,000,000 to hunt down

    the real perpetrators, the world would be a safer place. In any case, the military would be involved which leads to

    the next point. The democrats have been the ones leading the charge to downsize the military, if anybody is at fault

    for the military being streched thin, it should be laid at the feet of those who lobbied for the downsizing of the

    military. We were attacked and had little choice but to respond.

    If you want to be picky, the terrorist attacks

    on our country are a result of many years of failed policy under all presidents, be they democrats or republicans.

    Our foreign policy has earned us contempt, resentment and ridicule the world round, both the overly aggressive

    attempts to manage other country's governments and the appeasement attempts. We are lousy neighbors!

    Does that

    mean I think Bush is a good president? Absolutely not! But it doesn't mean I think Kerry will be any better.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    7124

    Default

    I would stand defensive and

    stiff on a stage with someone running around smerking, with facial tics, sneers, grunting and acting like a monkey

    on a chain. Who probably was on chain or a wire. Look for the DVD movie In Search of Fire and watch it carefully. It

    will clarify the whole body language discussion.
    Many are going to be surprized with the results of this

    election, ask the vets returning
    from Iraq who they are going to vote for? Their answer will surprize you.



    Elk

  9. #9
    Phero Enthusiast einstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    288
    Rep Power
    7459

    Default

    Every time I see this guy

    speak, his body language -- his gestures and postures -- just scream out "You cannot trust me!".

    I am just blown

    away by how powerful his body language is. I suspect he is being overcoached in his gestures. They don't seem

    natural at all.

    Whatever people think of Bush, I haven't heard many people express doubt about his sincerity. He

    truly believes in what he says.

    I just have this recurring image of living through another 8 years of

    Clintonesque scandals with Kerry
    Nice post!
    I saw the same thing, I jsut didn't know what I was looking

    at. I knew Kerry seemed too contrived, like he's trying to be someone he's not, trying to be what his coaches

    tell him to be.
    Bush has always seemed more sincere and natural. I'd much rather sit down and have a beer with

    Bush than Kerry.
    Bill Clinton just seemed slimy in the debates. I knew I couldn't trust him, but didn't know

    why.

    I'm still undecided on who to vote for. I don't think either of them can destroy the country, I hate

    this "most important vote in this generation" crap.
    I plan on on checking the polls, and if Missouri is close,

    I'll vote for Bush or Kerry. If it isn't close, I'll be voting Badnarik. Kerry has pulled out of Missouri,

    cancelled his TV ads, and sent his workers to other states. There's a pretty good chance Bush will take MO.

  10. #10
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7681

    Default

    Bush Jr. has the same problem

    his father did. He is pointing to some very obvious character flaws in his opponent, but he is not focusing on the

    issues that really concern people. Bush Sr. said Clinton would turn out to be slimy, and he did. Jr. says Kerry

    will flip-flop, and I believe that.

    But I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 in part because I was mad at Sr. for not

    understanding how many people were hurting financially. It looks to me like Jr. is in the same boat with Dad. He

    just doesn't get it.

    But I would rather have him calling the shots than Kerry. We don't need another Somalia.

    Bush Sr. got us into it for good reasons. Clinton just bungled it, and then shamefully acted like we had suffered

    a military defeat in the Battle of Mogadishu. Technically, we won, and we only suffered the casualties we did

    because Clinton refused to give the troops the armored support they asked for.

    Would Kerry be that wussy? I

    hope not. But I'm afraid he would never do anything anywhere unless he had at least 150 nations sending troops

    along with us.

    We had a coalition of 30 nations going into Iraq. We don't have that now, and that's a mark

    against Bush. But if Kerry is going to stand up there and insist we had no allies going into Iraq, I just can't

    see him dealing honestly with us or anyone else on future military situations.

    At least Bush hasn't tried to

    cover up the scandals in his administration. He may not be the brightest lighbulb in the box, but at least we

    don't have to wonder if he is going to be impeached.

  11. #11
    Bad Motha Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,004
    Rep Power
    7990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Friendly1
    Every time I see

    this guy speak, his body language -- his gestures and postures -- just scream out "You cannot trust

    me!".
    Have you ever formed an impression based on body language, only to find out down the road that

    you were just dead wrong? I'll bet the answer is yes.

    Sometimes (maybe or maybe not in Kerry's case - I

    don't know the man personally) body language can be really misleading and it is possible to read too much into it

    all.

    I do agree that his body language is rigid and unnatural, but maybe he just happens to suck at nonverbal

    communication. (And, heck, maybe he's a bad dancer, too.)

    At least Bush hasn't tried to cover up the

    scandals in his administration.
    Ba-dump-bump.
    If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen

    Holmes' Theme Song

  12. #12
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7681

    Default

    Kerry is generally considered

    the winner of the Presidential Debates in part because of his body language. He is said to have excellent debating

    skills. Bush does come off as a bit of a rookie. I think most people would. What I see in Kerry is a very

    polished, well-practiced set of mannerisms which occur over and over again. He just strikes me as very

    artificial.

    As for judging someone on the basis of their body language and finding out I was wrong, I haven't

    been cognizant of the importance of body language long enough to have made some sort of discovery like that.

    So

    far, I am reasonably satisfied with the conclusions I've drawn about people I have met.

  13. #13
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    7124

    Default

    Koolking 1, Things were

    better under Clinton. I have traveled Ohio,Indiana,and Michigan
    this summer. You cannot believe the number of

    people who have lost their jobs, unemployment benefits, and now their homes. Several businesses have failed others

    are already starting pre Christmas clearance sales. 2005 car models are full on the lots. All of this is not related

    to 9/11. A Ohio National Gardsman recently returned from duty in Iraq he found out his promised promotion and

    orginal job did not exist. He beat the streets for a couple of weeks looking for non existent work before comitting

    suicide. Bush's solution during the debate was to offer these folks retraining at Jr colleges or reeducation, God

    knows for what jobs?
    Bush himself was not successfull in business without the Saudi's bailing him out. He cannot

    run the country any better. What are folks going to do give him 4 more years to drive us into a deeper hole?

  14. #14
    Full Member DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Hollow Inside Myself
    Posts
    166
    Rep Power
    7306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koolking1
    Friendly1,

    I'd like your take on Cheney's body language in that particular debate.

    Also, life was better for me under

    Clinton: gas was $1.30; the stockmarket was booming; there wasn't any major war with our GIs getting killed daily;

    employment was good; health care costs hadn't spiralled out of control; NORAD/CIA/US Air Force/FAA had never let us

    down before (strange, huh?); France and Germany were reliable allies and friends; North Korea and Iran had no nukes;

    the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was simmering but not raging out of control; our military wasn't stretched thin

    beyond danger level; the National Guard guys and gals had their usual one weekend a month of socializing (and

    training!) and were available for hurricane/disaster relief; airlines were making money and not laying off

    people/shutting down pension funds; and - seemingly no hope is in sight to boot!!! Do I think Kerry would do a

    better job - no.
    I believe alot of what you say is exagerated myself (Especially the US Air Force comment,

    I dont see How we let you down)... Almost everything you say is in response to Sept. 11... not Bush. Bush at least

    had the Kojones to do something about it. Things change.... and you gotta respond to them.

    Adams

  15. #15
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elk Dreamer
    Things were

    better under Clinton.
    You really believe that? You think the economic slow down happened overnight or

    even in as little as a year? Or even that the president has much control over it? What nonsense! It took years of

    neglect before the situation came to a head with the stock market bubble collapsing, 9/11, energy costs and the war

    in Iraq have only made matters worse. Bush is a terrible president but let's at least deal with the problem

    honestly.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  16. #16
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Friendly1
    Every time I see

    this guy speak, his body language -- his gestures and postures -- just scream out "You cannot trust

    me!".
    Yes, but doesn’t Bush’s body language scream, “I’m a cocky little bastard.”?


    And even when he’s wearing his “man of the people” costume (no jacket, no tie, dress shirt with the sleeves rolled

    up) he projects a strong “I’m rich and you’re not.” attitude.

    I think it’s a bad idea to pick candidates

    on the basis of their body language, but if that’s all we have to go by... What could be scarier than that famous

    Bush smirk? That’s the sign of a strong malevolent streak — if not a downright sadistic personality.



    And then there’s those moments when his eyes wander off while his mouth is still talking. I’m not sure how to read

    that (Drugs? Brain damage? Voices from God?), but it sure doesn’t inspire confidence.
    Give truth a chance.

  17. #17
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    7124

    Default

    A.K.A Great post. You have

    it exactly B.M.O.C. Big Man on Campus I have seen a lot of them and they are not at your side when the going gets

    tough. Cheney has some of the same sneers as he speaks out the side of his mouth. I think they have nothing but

    contempt for the people they fool with their lies including the far right Christians who they manipulate so easily.

    Belgareth take a good look at the energy crisis that came to a head early in California and the Cheney energy

    meetings in DC which the Republicans went to court to keep from disclosing their discussions. I feel a brighter,

    intelligent, President would have taken the Country in a far better direction than the quagmire pit in Iraq. None of

    the Bush Boys have done well with their public service or business interests. Neil Bush who you seldom hear anything

    about nowdays was the brother that ripped us off a few years ago with a massive Savings and Loan Scam. He and his

    cohorts rode off scott free with the life savings of many folks. We were left with that empty bag. W is going to do

    the same thing with this Countries resources if he can pull it off before enough people wake up.
    I think people

    are waking up. I think many are going to be surprized with the sweep that is going to take Kerry into office;

    barring a contrived trumped up fear raising terrorist attack of some type. I see more Kerry/Edwards signs in usual

    Republician territory than ever before that is one visible thing tells me that people are waking up.

    Elk

  18. #18
    Bad Motha Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,004
    Rep Power
    7990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a.k.a.
    Yes, but doesn’t

    Bush’s body language scream, “I’m a cocky little bastard.”?

    And even when he’s wearing his “man of the

    people” costume (no jacket, no tie, dress shirt with the sleeves rolled up) he projects a strong “I’m rich and

    you’re not.” attitude.

    I think it’s a bad idea to pick candidates on the basis of their body language, but

    if that’s all we have to go by... What could be scarier than that famous Bush smirk? That’s the sign of a strong

    malevolent streak — if not a downright sadistic personality
    .
    Bush's personality has been

    described thusly on many occasions. And anyway, it's written all over his face: "Yee-haw, I'm above the

    law!"

    During all three debates, his demeanor was that of an arrogant little brat who'd been caught stealing

    milk money, only to stamp his feet over the fact that someone had the balls to call him on it.

    Unprofessional

    and unpresidential.
    If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen

    Holmes' Theme Song

  19. #19
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7681

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by a.k.a.
    Yes, but doesn’t

    Bush’s body language scream, “I’m a cocky little bastard.”?
    And even when he’s wearing his “man of the people”

    costume (no jacket, no tie, dress shirt with the sleeves rolled up) he projects a strong “I’m rich and you’re not.”

    attitude.
    Nothing wrong with that. As long as he expresses himself sincerely, we know where he stands.

    We are under no obligation to agree with him.

    But as long as Kerry uses artificial gestures and poses to mislead

    people into thinking he is being sincere, we have no idea of where he stands.

    I think it's a bad idea to pick a

    candidate on the basis of political speeches and television and radio advertisements, but that is how we do it,

    isn't it?

    This country seems more in love with the idea of picking the guy who can conduct the best poison pen

    campaign than with the idea of finding a good, decent candidate and going with him (or her).

  20. #20
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    7124

    Default

    Friendly 1,
    Read the

    Party platforms, that gives you in depth positions on most issues and the Candidates seldom veer far from that

    platform in their decision making. Some people pick their candidates according to looks only but the majority pick

    on how the candidate and Party policies are affecting them personally. The guys coming home from Iraq have been

    instructed not to talk but most of them I have talked with feel that Bush and company let them down with the whole

    Iraq game plan. The growing AWOL list certainly indicates the current frustration levels.

    Elk

  21. #21
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elk Dreamer
    Belgareth

    take a good look at the energy crisis that came to a head early in California and the Cheney energy meetings in DC

    which the Republicans went to court to keep from disclosing their discussions. I feel a brighter, intelligent,

    President would have taken the Country in a far better direction than the quagmire pit in Iraq. None of the Bush

    Boys have done well with their public service or business interests. Neil Bush who you seldom hear anything about

    nowdays was the brother that ripped us off a few years ago with a massive Savings and Loan Scam. He and his cohorts

    rode off scott free with the life savings of many folks. We were left with that empty bag. W is going to do the same

    thing with this Countries resources if he can pull it off before enough people wake up.

    Elk
    If you'll

    go back and read what I said, I believe that Bush and his gang are responsible for the energy crises issues. That

    does not change the fact that you are laying the blame for some things on him that he simply could not have done.

    All I am doing is trying to interject some small dose of reality.

    I hope the country wakes up soon and realizes

    that both parties are full of crap, both candidates are bought, paid for and owned by other interests and do not

    have the best interests of you and I in mind. Clinton was not responsible for the economic growth except in as much

    as he left it alone. At the same time, if he had been paying some attention to the economy he might have seen the

    impending crash coming. But maybe he did, maybe he wanted the republicans to be blamed by an uninformed and gullible

    public. I don't know.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  22. #22
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7681

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    I hope the

    country wakes up soon and realizes that both parties are full of crap, both candidates are bought, paid for and

    owned by other interests and do not have the best interests of you and I in mind.
    I don't think most

    people will ever accept that. We had to put up with eight years of Clinton shenanigans because people didn't want

    to believe that he was the shady character he turned out to be.

    Bush's foreign policy has proven to be more

    effective than Clinton's. During the Clinton administration, it was common enough for leaders of other nations to

    launch into anti-American tirades. Now, about the only people doing that are terrorists and Democrats.

    I wish

    we could bring our troops home from Iraq today, but I'm glad we're not looking at another 12 years of Saddam

    Hussein's blustering (and people don't seem to be aware of just how many troops we had committed to that region

    even though we weren't technically at war with Iraq).

    Do we have another few years in Iraq? Looks like it.

    Doesn't matter who is President. The only way we can get out of Iraq is to build a stable Iraqi government.



    We'll end up in a Vietnam-like quagmire if and only if there is a civil war. We haven't even begun to approach

    Vietnam-like policies and politics. I hope it never comes to that.

    Of course, it was the Democrats (Kennedy and

    Johnson) who gave us the Vietnam quagmire. Nixon eventually got us out of there, although he reneged on several

    campaign promises before doing so.

    Carter gave us Iran.

    Reagan gave us Beirut. But Reagan also stared down

    the Soviet Union and their system crumbled from within (something which was bound to happen eventually).

    Unfortunately, it seems like there is still a danger that Russia might revert to some of the old Soviet ways (or

    never entirely abandoned them).

    In the wake of September 11, I am grateful for the fact that I can drive down to

    the local mall without concern for bomb-laden buses and suicide bombers.

    When I read about the quagmire in

    Israel and the Palestinian territories, I wish they would just stop killing each other. But that doesn't seem

    likely to happen. It would benefit both sides to stop, but neither side has the will to back off and risk being

    perceived in their own minds as weak.

    Today's foreign policy is really only about one thing: making sure

    everyone else perceives you as being strong. That is the way it is between India and Pakistan. That is the way it

    is between Russia and the Chechen rebels. That is the way it is between Syria and the rest of the Middle East.

    That is the way it is between the United States and the rest of the world.

    Clinton made us seem weak, and we

    paid the price for it. Until everyone else changes, looking weak and vacillating is a bad thing for us.

    We had

    better reasons for going into Iraq than people give us credit for. At the time, all we had to go on was the

    now-discredited intelligence that Saddam Hussein was still building weapons of mass destruction.

    Bush made the

    right decision. He didn't order anyone to fabricate evidence to suport that decision. He could have timed it

    differently, but once he made the ultimatum which followed that last U.N. resolution, the time table was set.

    As

    long as people continue to get their truths from propagandists like Michael Moore and Gun Boat Veterans for Truth, I

    seriously doubt we'll ever have a well-informed electorate. We have highly opinionated voters, and that's about

    it.

    But we may get an unusually high voter turnout in a couple of weeks. If that happens, then the past few

    months of political nonsense will have been more worthwhile than the previous several elections.

  23. #23
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    We are in agreement on almost

    every point you made. The points of disagreement are:

    1. Bush made the wrong decision to attack Iraq. He

    justified it through fabrication. Saddam could have been marginalized by publicly ignoring him while keeping a

    covert eye on his activities. Eventually he would have been regarded much as the boy who cried wolf. The effort

    should have been focused on finding and punishing the people who really attacked us. Single-minded determination to

    hunt them down then over-whelming force used to punish them would have demonstrated far more strength while creating

    fewer enemies, IMHO.

    2. Voters can be educated! I think the huge influx of registrations is a good sign. People

    may be getting fed up with business as usual. I hope that a sizeable portion of them do not vote party, no matter

    how they are registered. Of the ones who do vote party, how many are going to come away disillusioned when their

    party wins and fails to fulfill promises? These people are finally registering to vote because they feel there is

    something important to do. What happens when the promises are not fulfilled?

    Whatever happens, the next few

    years could be interesting.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  24. #24
    Full Member HK45Mark23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    SouthWestern Indiana
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    7190

    Post

    Both of the previous posts are good. I do believe there were enough time to remove, give away to

    terrorist or other rouge countries or burry the alleged weapons before we invaded. I am not convinced there were no

    weapons. It has been proven there was the mind trust and intensions to manufacture WMDs. Friendly1, I agree with

    you. I think it takes several years to feel the effects of a Presidential. So I think we are feeling the effects

    of poor leadership from a prior administration. I was heartbroken to see someone disgrace the office with so many

    scandals. I also think that the standards in America declined and moral decay ran ramped as a result. I do think

    that Bush has re-instilled dignity and ethics to the Office of Presidency. It is true that a lot of the process of

    campaigning is crap. I hate the mud slinging. The disinformation and misinformation runs ramped. A lot of the

    promised are unobtainable. Also let’s not forget that the FBI, CIA, Great Britton and Russia all thought there were

    WMD. Also France, Germany, The UN and Saddam Hussein all were dipping there hands into the oil for food money. So

    it all comes out in the wash.



    As far as

    body language goes Kerry has the mismatched and rehearsed gestures, IMHO Bush is honest and possibly holding top

    secret info in the interest of the people. That may be why he reacts kind of strangely. I my self have known

    things I had to keep to my self and have had uninformed “ignorant” people make arguments based on unsubstantiated

    information while I could not reveal my knowledge. It is a hard position to be in. I felt like screaming “You

    Idiots, You Don’t Know What You Are Talking About” and spilling the beans. I did not and in time they knew the

    wisdom I had and the inferiority of their previous positioning. Remember Kerry is an old pro when it comes to

    politics, he is well rehearsed. Bush is not. But, Bush has grit.






    HK45Mark23

  25. #25
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7681

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    We are in

    agreement on almost every point you made. The points of disagreement are:

    1. Bush made the wrong decision to

    attack Iraq. He justified it through fabrication.
    Bush didn't fabricate anything. He wasn't in the

    position to do that, much less get away with it. The media have done a pretty good job of determining that the only

    fabrications came out of British intelligence. But neither Bush nor Blair ordered anyone to falsify intelligence.

    They had no need to.

    What happened was a gross misinterpretation of complicated evidence.

    As for

    marginalizing Saddam, that was never going to happen. We had committed almost 100,000 military personnel to the

    region because of Saddam. And because of the sanctions against Iraq, thousands of Iraqi children were malnourished

    and dying every year. We bear some responsibility for those deaths and hardships because the policy of sanctions

    did not achieve what it was intended to achieve (the overthrow of Saddam).

    2. Voters can be educated! I

    think the huge influx of registrations is a good sign.
    Voters cannot be educated very well, because the

    airwaves (and the Internet) are overwhelmed with partisan politics.

    Look at how many people believe that Bush

    stole the last election (an impossibility) and how many people believe that Bush falsified the intelligence leading

    to the war in Iraq (another impossibility).

    A great deal of nonsense is accepted as fact without challenge by a

    lot of people. Even when the facts are published and discussed to death in the media, the false allegations (such

    as these two points) which led to the revelations of the facts and all the subsequent analysis and discussion

    continue to be endlessly repeated -- and therefore unnecessarily believed -- by millions of people.

    There will

    probably always be people who claim that Kerry's medals were not properly awarded and there will probably always be

    people who claim that Bush did not finish his military service honorably.

    Both charges are false. Both charges

    continue to be repeated over and over.

    The truth is always the first victim in any conflict. That rule applies

    in Presidential politics as well as in all walks of life.

  26. #26
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    7124

    Default

    Regardless of all the

    opinions expressed here, and most of them are simple opinions. Like As os we all have one. This election and the

    aftermath is going to be one of the most interesting ever, due to the partispation of thousands of new people who

    have been registered and are inspired by the controversies truth and untruths. You might just as well vote and hang

    on for the ride boys. I voted two weeks ago. LOLOLO

    Elk

  27. #27
    Full Member HK45Mark23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    SouthWestern Indiana
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    7190

    Smile

    Elk, this is true. I am glad to here that

    you voted. I can't wait. Too many have not taken the issues seriously in the past. Your statements about

    opinions are true. Thank God we live in a place where we can express our opinions. It is a wonder that we live in

    a place where the people govern their selves as we do in this great democracy. I cherish the right to express my

    self. I cherish the right to vote. When others don’t hold the same views and they diametrically oppose my beliefs,

    I stand up and say, “I don’t agree but think God we can disagree in public and hold debate for the sake of

    intellectual stimulation,” and I would fight to the death to protect this right. It is unfortunate, but most

    debates only results in both parties being more deeply rooted in there beliefs. Seldom do people go home and think,

    "Gee I think that I should reevaluate my position." Even if after doing so they still feel the same, then, at least

    they did not just self justify as is human nature. I feel the point of the debate is to look at things from

    multiple view points. For it is only after empathizing from many different perspectives, that one can start

    obtaining the wisdom necessary to make rational decisions. Thanks.







    HK45Mark23
    Last edited by HK45Mark23; 10-17-2004 at 02:42 AM. Reason: minor correction

  28. #28
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Friendly,

    Ok, fabrication

    was the wrong word. Your term 'Gross misinterpretation' is a much better term. Bush selected what he wanted to

    believe based on his personal desires, IMHO. But the whole argument is based on the belief that we have the right or

    obligation to act as the world's police, judge and jury. That's what we were doing in trying to oust Hussien.

    Desert Storm was done right, including stopping when we did. The implementing of sanctions afterwards are of

    debatable value as sanctions in general have proven to be pretty worthless in changing a country's direction. Look

    at Cuba for a great example of that.

    In Desert Storm we were asked to help defend an ally and we did so. The

    difference is that we were not invited into Iraq by anybody, nor were we directly attacked by Iraq. We made the

    decision to attack another country because we didn't like it's leadership. Another country's leadership, unless

    physically attacking us, is not our business. The comment about the children dying, while a tragedy worthy of

    humanitarian efforts, carries no weight while so many of our own are hungry and homeless. It certainly is not a good

    reason to kill untold numbers of innocent bystanders in a foriegn land.

    You state that voters cannot be educated

    very well. In large part I agree with you because of the social/political climate we are working within. But to

    believe they cannot be educated at all is another thing altogether. If I were to accept that trying to educate the

    public is an impossible task, that would be tatamount to stating that our democratic system is unworkable. There is

    some argument for that but in my idealism I choose to not accept it. Rather, I'd like to look at the long road of

    believing that we can change the social/political climate. It doesn't much matter to me if you or anybody else

    votes for Bush, Kerry or Donald Duck. What matters is that you take a little effort to learn the issues and vote

    what/who you believe is in the best interests of the country as a whole. The information is readily available to

    most people through one means or another without relying on the media or campaign mudslinging. The necessary

    critical thinking skills and community interest can be taught, they were taught at one time but we've moved away

    from that in our educational system.

    "There will probably always be people who claim that Kerry's medals were

    not properly awarded and there will probably always be people who claim that Bush did not finish his military

    service honorably.

    Both charges are false. Both charges continue to be repeated over and over."

    There will

    also be Flat Earthers and people who believe JFK's assasination was a CIA conspiracy. Teaching our children to

    think rather than to memorize information would go a long ways towards correcting that. Holding politicians to their

    word would also be a step in the right direction. So would elimination of the huge campaign contributions and term

    limits.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  29. #29
    Full Member HK45Mark23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    SouthWestern Indiana
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    7190

    Smile

    Well stated. Good post. Not sure about Bush's motives, but very well put.

    I also recall Nicholo Machiavelli stating something

    to the effect that the morality of a leader is different from that of the common man. If a leader perceives a treat

    to his people it is his obligation to assassinate the one who is the threat. I would not be ok for one of us to

    kill some one, but if one of us was a king or a leader and we perceive a threat to the people it is our moral

    obligation to the people to “take out” the threat. I use this concept when evaluating a threat to my family,

    friends and anyone who I can prevent from suffering severe bodily harm or death. Clinton was also in the know about

    the possibility of various threats from Bin laden to Hussein and did nothing. I don’t like the idea of the U.S. as

    the world police but we are doomed if we act the part or don’t due to our strength and wealth. Don’t get me wrong I

    am not for the Robin Hood idea. I believe in Jeffersonian democracy and capitalism.





    HK45Mark23

  30. #30
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    I completely disagree with

    Machiavellian philosophy on that point. It implies that a government has a higher authority than the people but in

    fact the opposite is true. The people are the ultimate authority. Under that philosophy, I have no right to use

    lethal force to defend myself but the government may use lethal force to require me to conform to the government's

    decisions. I lose the right to voice my opinion if it is contradictory to the government's best interests, which

    are not always the people's best interests. Government has an obligation to protect and to serve but wars of

    aggression are never done to protect.

    Again, you are speaking from the concept that we have a right to tell

    others how to act, we don't! Reverse the situation and say that another country the size and strength of our own

    decides our system is unfair and causing suffering and death to a percentage of our people. Arguably, it is

    happening here in the United States in greater numbers than in Iraq. Do they have the right to invade the US to

    enforce their beliefs on us? I think we would object rather forcefully, don't you?

    Or take it down to the

    micro: if your neighbor decides that they don't like the way you run your household, does your neighbor have the

    right to come into your home and use force to change the way you do things? Then why should a government have the

    right to do that with another country?
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

Page 1 of 4 1 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Question about body language
    By lordcrazyd in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-11-2004, 03:51 AM
  2. Body Language
    By nemx2000 in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-10-2004, 01:13 PM
  3. Reading body language
    By ironration in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-01-2003, 01:05 PM
  4. Pheromones and Body Language
    By Alquimista in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-27-2003, 05:49 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •