Terrorists on ROFF?

George Cleveland wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:26:26 GMT, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:45:51 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:09:21 GMT,
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:35:11 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:


Well, this is the problem innit. I've been trying to figure out
why Bush can't admit to any mistakes. And what I've come up with
is that he really does believe that he is an instrument of God's
will or perhaps he even believes that God is personally telling
him what to do. (I also can't help but wonder, if that is the
case, if God doesn't sound alot like Dick Cheney's voice coming
over a teensy weensy speaker). And of course since God can't be
wrong therefore G.W. Bush can't be wrong either.

It must be lonely belonging to a club with only two members and
one of the members speaks Latin and Polish better than he does
English.

We know where your diapers are, too, George...

WATCH OUT FOR THE GIRAFFES!

Oh I get it. Sorry, I made a mistake (See I can do it, why can't
Bush?).

Why should he (or Kerry, either)? It would do no good, but it could
do harm.

I made a smilification error. After "I also can't help but
wonder, if that is the case, if God doesn't sound alot like Dick
Cheney's voice coming over a teensy weensy speaker" I should have
put a " ;^) ". No Ricardo, I don't really believe that Dick has
implanted a teeny tiny speaker in George B's ear. That was a funny
image that occured to me.

But really, I do wonder if G.B. thinks he is exercising
God's Will and therefore thinks all his actions are unassailable.

IMO, "yes" to the former and "no" to the latter, but not "yes" to
extent that you seem to imply. I think he is an honestly religious
man and believes that on some level, everything is God's will, but I
don't think he thinks he has been somehow singularly "anointed." I,
myself, am not particularly religious, but I'd much rather have a
man with Bush's beliefs than a man with none at all - as always,
YMMV.

TC,
R

But the trouble is that that his refusal to admit to *any* mistakes
comes across as being borderline pathological. It seems to me that he
would gain in stature, not lessen it, by identifying where mistakes
were made and then pointing out how he's learned from them. Thereby he
will be able to avoid repeating them in the future.

My major qualm concerning this issue is that far from his "no
mistakes" being a campaign ploy to show him as a strong leader, it may
be an actual reflection of his view of himself, the world and his
place in it.

All of what you say would be correct in "real-world every day life", but
doesn't work in the political realm. This goes to another point I made
earlier, that a "real" person, like one who admits their shortcomings or
mistakes, cannot be elected or retain a high elected office. The
opposition (either side) has teams of people looking for the Achilles'
Heel of the other. If I was running for office (not likely, for the same
reasons Wayne K. already detailed) and said I made a mistake, my side
would say exactly what you did about being able to identify mistakes and
learn from them. My opposition, however, would slam me for flip-flopping
(sound familiar?) and making the mistake in the first place. It's a
no-win move to admit a mistake within the political arena.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:56:01 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:


But the trouble is that that his refusal to admit to *any* mistakes
comes across as being borderline pathological. It seems to me that he
would gain in stature, not lessen it, by identifying where mistakes
were made and then pointing out how he's learned from them. Thereby he
will be able to avoid repeating them in the future.

My major qualm concerning this issue is that far from his "no
mistakes" being a campaign ploy to show him as a strong leader, it may
be an actual reflection of his view of himself, the world and his
place in it.

What I meant was that his admitting to mistakes when asked that question during
the debate or in press conferences would serve no good purpose in terms of the
election - it's a "no-win" situation for any candidate and admitting specific
mistakes does nothing really but give ammo to opponents - look at the raking
Kerry took over his "I made a mistake" comments. Bush has said things such as
that he'd rethink certain things, etc. and in point of fact, he didn't say he
never made a mistake, he said that he was sure he had made mistakes, but he just
couldn't think of one at that moment. And yes, ff course, it was election
politics answer, but again, about the only choice any candidate would have. I
do find it interesting that Kerry and Edwards don't get put the same questioning
by the press corps in general (but granted, when they make a mistake G and
admit to a specific mistake, they do get slammed over it).

TC,
R

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:56:01 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:


But the trouble is that that his refusal to admit to *any* mistakes
comes across as being borderline pathological. It seems to me that he
would gain in stature, not lessen it, by identifying where mistakes
were made and then pointing out how he's learned from them. Thereby he
will be able to avoid repeating them in the future.

My major qualm concerning this issue is that far from his "no
mistakes" being a campaign ploy to show him as a strong leader, it may
be an actual reflection of his view of himself, the world and his
place in it.

What I meant was that his admitting to mistakes when asked that question during
the debate or in press conferences would serve no good purpose in terms of the
election - it's a "no-win" situation for any candidate and admitting specific
mistakes does nothing really but give ammo to opponents - look at the raking
Kerry took over his "I made a mistake" comments. Bush has said things such as
that he'd rethink certain things, etc. and in point of fact, he didn't say he
never made a mistake, he said that he was sure he had made mistakes, but he just
couldn't think of one at that moment. And yes, ff course, it was election
politics answer, but again, about the only choice any candidate would have. I
do find it interesting that Kerry and Edwards don't get put the same questioning
by the press corps in general (but granted, when they make a mistake G and
admit to a specific mistake, they do get slammed over it).

TC,
R

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:56:01 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:


But the trouble is that that his refusal to admit to *any* mistakes
comes across as being borderline pathological. It seems to me that he
would gain in stature, not lessen it, by identifying where mistakes
were made and then pointing out how he's learned from them. Thereby he
will be able to avoid repeating them in the future.

My major qualm concerning this issue is that far from his "no
mistakes" being a campaign ploy to show him as a strong leader, it may
be an actual reflection of his view of himself, the world and his
place in it.

What I meant was that his admitting to mistakes when asked that question during
the debate or in press conferences would serve no good purpose in terms of the
election - it's a "no-win" situation for any candidate and admitting specific
mistakes does nothing really but give ammo to opponents - look at the raking
Kerry took over his "I made a mistake" comments. Bush has said things such as
that he'd rethink certain things, etc. and in point of fact, he didn't say he
never made a mistake, he said that he was sure he had made mistakes, but he just
couldn't think of one at that moment. And yes, ff course, it was election
politics answer, but again, about the only choice any candidate would have. I
do find it interesting that Kerry and Edwards don't get put the same questioning
by the press corps in general (but granted, when they make a mistake G and
admit to a specific mistake, they do get slammed over it).

TC,
R

"riverman" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

I, myself, am not particularly religious, but
I'd much rather have a man with Bush's beliefs than a man with none at
all - as
always, YMMV.


Why is that? Is there some assumption that a religious person has some
sort
of Moral Compass that a non-religious president would lack? Or that a
religious president is less likely to be extemist or something? I think
both
of those perspectives have been borne out to be very false over history...

It has always amazed me that non-religious Americans would want as their
CIC
and President someone who professes to believe in an invisible,
supernatural
being with whom he can talk and who gives him instructions for his
actions.
(To the non-religious, thats how it must look.) To them, that would be a
character flaw, not a desireable trait, I'd think!

--riverman


It is a character flaw. We have elected a man who says he is guided by one
of the most backward, primitive brands of garbled nonsense on that whackjob
shelf known as fundamentalist Christianity ( itself a simplified, backwoods
form of primitive Judaism). (Everybody has heard his version of "speaking in
tongues", Im waiting for him to start handling snakes in the oval office.)

His "religion" is the standard "born again" ex-honky-tonker strain, favored
by poorly educated, ex-snake oil salesman, usually adopted after long
periods of drunkenness, family abuse, and unethical business practices. Its
a way to avoid being a man and making amends for the damage such a person
does. And, It is a secular pseudo-religion that exploits the obligation of
other Christians to exercise "forgiveness." Clinton used it too, but didn't
build his career on it.

Bush, in a stroke of evil genius, forged his political career by exploiting
this "forgiveness" thang, But . . . George's inability to admit mistakes is
the "tell" that gives him away as a smirking cynical smartass, because a
basic tenant of the "born-again" deal is a full and public asking for
forgiveness. That is something his inner DKE could never do. It may yet
bite him in the ass.

Robertson may smell the inner rat.

Dave
Face it, the Emperor has no clothes.

"riverman" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

I, myself, am not particularly religious, but
I'd much rather have a man with Bush's beliefs than a man with none at
all - as
always, YMMV.


Why is that? Is there some assumption that a religious person has some
sort
of Moral Compass that a non-religious president would lack? Or that a
religious president is less likely to be extemist or something? I think
both
of those perspectives have been borne out to be very false over history...

It has always amazed me that non-religious Americans would want as their
CIC
and President someone who professes to believe in an invisible,
supernatural
being with whom he can talk and who gives him instructions for his
actions.
(To the non-religious, thats how it must look.) To them, that would be a
character flaw, not a desireable trait, I'd think!

--riverman


It is a character flaw. We have elected a man who says he is guided by one
of the most backward, primitive brands of garbled nonsense on that whackjob
shelf known as fundamentalist Christianity ( itself a simplified, backwoods
form of primitive Judaism). (Everybody has heard his version of "speaking in
tongues", Im waiting for him to start handling snakes in the oval office.)

His "religion" is the standard "born again" ex-honky-tonker strain, favored
by poorly educated, ex-snake oil salesman, usually adopted after long
periods of drunkenness, family abuse, and unethical business practices. Its
a way to avoid being a man and making amends for the damage such a person
does. And, It is a secular pseudo-religion that exploits the obligation of
other Christians to exercise "forgiveness." Clinton used it too, but didn't
build his career on it.

Bush, in a stroke of evil genius, forged his political career by exploiting
this "forgiveness" thang, But . . . George's inability to admit mistakes is
the "tell" that gives him away as a smirking cynical smartass, because a
basic tenant of the "born-again" deal is a full and public asking for
forgiveness. That is something his inner DKE could never do. It may yet
bite him in the ass.

Robertson may smell the inner rat.

Dave
Face it, the Emperor has no clothes.

riverman wrote:
snip
It has always amazed me that non-religious Americans would want as
their CIC and President someone who professes to believe in an
invisible, supernatural being with whom he can talk and who gives him
instructions for his actions. (To the non-religious, thats how it
must look.) To them, that would be a character flaw, not a desireable
trait, I'd think!

--riverman

Yes, that is how it looks. But there's no choice. A non-religious person
could never get nominated, let alone elected. And not just agnostics or
atheists - just being unwilling to join or attend a church would blacklist
you for a large part of the American public.
--
Stan Gula

riverman wrote:
snip
It has always amazed me that non-religious Americans would want as
their CIC and President someone who professes to believe in an
invisible, supernatural being with whom he can talk and who gives him
instructions for his actions. (To the non-religious, thats how it
must look.) To them, that would be a character flaw, not a desireable
trait, I'd think!

--riverman

Yes, that is how it looks. But there's no choice. A non-religious person
could never get nominated, let alone elected. And not just agnostics or
atheists - just being unwilling to join or attend a church would blacklist
you for a large part of the American public.
--
Stan Gula

riverman wrote:
snip
It has always amazed me that non-religious Americans would want as
their CIC and President someone who professes to believe in an
invisible, supernatural being with whom he can talk and who gives him
instructions for his actions. (To the non-religious, thats how it
must look.) To them, that would be a character flaw, not a desireable
trait, I'd think!

--riverman

Yes, that is how it looks. But there's no choice. A non-religious person
could never get nominated, let alone elected. And not just agnostics or
atheists - just being unwilling to join or attend a church would blacklist
you for a large part of the American public.
--
Stan Gula

Tim J. wrote:


But the trouble is that that his refusal to admit to *any* mistakes
comes across as being borderline pathological. It seems to me that he
would gain in stature, not lessen it, by identifying where mistakes
were made and then pointing out how he's learned from them. Thereby he
will be able to avoid repeating them in the future.

My major qualm concerning this issue is that far from his "no
mistakes" being a campaign ploy to show him as a strong leader, it may
be an actual reflection of his view of himself, the world and his
place in it.


All of what you say would be correct in "real-world every day life", but
doesn't work in the political realm. This goes to another point I made
earlier, that a "real" person, like one who admits their shortcomings or
mistakes, cannot be elected or retain a high elected office. The
opposition (either side) has teams of people looking for the Achilles'
Heel of the other. If I was running for office (not likely, for the same
reasons Wayne K. already detailed) and said I made a mistake, my side
would say exactly what you did about being able to identify mistakes and
learn from them. My opposition, however, would slam me for flip-flopping
(sound familiar?) and making the mistake in the first place. It's a
no-win move to admit a mistake within the political arena.


Unfortunately, that's how I see things too.

Given our political system, I agree that it would be a "political"
mistake for a politician to admit to a mistake. For some reason, it
seems the electoral populous has the illusion that somehow a President
should be infallible and admitting that a mistake was made is political
suicide.

Maybe I've lead a sheltered life or hang out with the wrong people, but
I've yet to meet an infallible person. EVERYONE makes mistakes. It's how
a person deals with the mistakes he's made that's important. What is
labeled as flip flop , isn't necessarily a bad thing and what is
labeled as consistency and steadfastness could be a disaster.
Realizing that you have made a mistake and changing your actions to
rectify that mistake is MUCH better, IMO, than to continue to be
steadfast in your opinion when you are wrong.

Willi