Terrorists on ROFF?

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

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:56:24 +0100, "riverman" wrote:


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?

Yes, to an extent, and esp. if you change "would lack" to "could lack." And I
mean someone truly "religious," ala Jimmy Carter, Billy Graham, etc., not
someone who is undisputedly using religion as a con. Hence, I use these two as
examples because I would guess most would agree these are both honorable and
religious men, but I personally believe there are many others, incl. Bush, Bob
Dole, Joe Lieberman, etc., and realize others are less-likely to agree with
those.

Or that a religious president is less likely to be extemist or something?

Not really.

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!

Well, first, I said and I meant that I was not particularly religious, not that
I was non-religious, so I can't really offer an opinion on what the
non-religious might think. My take is that people need something to have faith
in, to believe in, to use as what you called a "moral compass." If their way to
find that "centering" is religion, ala Billy Graham, and that helps them in the
struggle to be generally good, decent, and caring people, then for them,
religion is a good thing.

To me, anyone who takes what they claim as an "intellectual view" (i.e., that a
person "who professes to believe in an invisible, supernatural being with whom
he can talk and who gives him instructions for his actions" are somehow
backward, foolish, or otherwise.) and expects others to share that view, but
belittles those who do not share that view is no better than those they so
readily criticize as being "religious wackos," etc.

TC,
R

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:56:24 +0100, "riverman" wrote:


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?

Yes, to an extent, and esp. if you change "would lack" to "could lack." And I
mean someone truly "religious," ala Jimmy Carter, Billy Graham, etc., not
someone who is undisputedly using religion as a con. Hence, I use these two as
examples because I would guess most would agree these are both honorable and
religious men, but I personally believe there are many others, incl. Bush, Bob
Dole, Joe Lieberman, etc., and realize others are less-likely to agree with
those.

Or that a religious president is less likely to be extemist or something?

Not really.

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!

Well, first, I said and I meant that I was not particularly religious, not that
I was non-religious, so I can't really offer an opinion on what the
non-religious might think. My take is that people need something to have faith
in, to believe in, to use as what you called a "moral compass." If their way to
find that "centering" is religion, ala Billy Graham, and that helps them in the
struggle to be generally good, decent, and caring people, then for them,
religion is a good thing.

To me, anyone who takes what they claim as an "intellectual view" (i.e., that a
person "who professes to believe in an invisible, supernatural being with whom
he can talk and who gives him instructions for his actions" are somehow
backward, foolish, or otherwise.) and expects others to share that view, but
belittles those who do not share that view is no better than those they so
readily criticize as being "religious wackos," etc.

TC,
R

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

It is a character flaw. But it has no more to do with any garbled religious
nonsense than it does with your own incoherent misunderstanding of the
various brands of garbled religious nonsense. In the first place, no brand
of Christianity is any kind of primitive Judaism. In the second, there is
no good reason for the moderately educated individual in America to suppose
that George Bush (pere or fils) knows any more about the distinctions
between Judaism and Christianity than you do. Nor should one make the
mistake of supposing that a professed dedication to one or the other, coming
from a career politician coached be a cadre of professionals in a country in
which we all know that anyone admitting to disdain such stupidity or even
simply ignore it, is sincere.

Meanwhile......

Serendipity rules the world. I just ran across these little gems*, which
seem most appropriate at a time like this:

"[society is] too big, too complex [for the average person to comprehend,
since most citizens are] mentally children or barbarians..."

"[fear is] an important element to be bred in the civilian population. It
is difficult to unite a people by talking only on the highest ethical plane.
To fight for an ideal, perhaps, must be coupled with thoughts of
preservation."

"Truth and falsehood are arbitrary terms....There is nothing in experience
to tell us that one is always preferable to the other....There are lifeless
truths and vital lies....The force of an idea lies in its inspirational
value. It matters very little if it is true or false."

Wolfgang
who will not be voting for a known liar in the upcoming elections
*a shiny new nickel apiece to whoever first correctly identifies the sources
of the above quotes.......and no, it wasn't kennie.
and, yes stevie, i know what ellipses are and i know how to count
dots......if it means all that much to you, i will forward your indignant
squeaks to the proximate source of the quoted materials.
oh, and don't take it personally, davie.....as every musician knows, you
just hit the individual keys in their turn.

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

It is a character flaw. But it has no more to do with any garbled religious
nonsense than it does with your own incoherent misunderstanding of the
various brands of garbled religious nonsense. In the first place, no brand
of Christianity is any kind of primitive Judaism. In the second, there is
no good reason for the moderately educated individual in America to suppose
that George Bush (pere or fils) knows any more about the distinctions
between Judaism and Christianity than you do. Nor should one make the
mistake of supposing that a professed dedication to one or the other, coming
from a career politician coached be a cadre of professionals in a country in
which we all know that anyone admitting to disdain such stupidity or even
simply ignore it, is sincere.

Meanwhile......

Serendipity rules the world. I just ran across these little gems*, which
seem most appropriate at a time like this:

"[society is] too big, too complex [for the average person to comprehend,
since most citizens are] mentally children or barbarians..."

"[fear is] an important element to be bred in the civilian population. It
is difficult to unite a people by talking only on the highest ethical plane.
To fight for an ideal, perhaps, must be coupled with thoughts of
preservation."

"Truth and falsehood are arbitrary terms....There is nothing in experience
to tell us that one is always preferable to the other....There are lifeless
truths and vital lies....The force of an idea lies in its inspirational
value. It matters very little if it is true or false."

Wolfgang
who will not be voting for a known liar in the upcoming elections
*a shiny new nickel apiece to whoever first correctly identifies the sources
of the above quotes.......and no, it wasn't kennie.
and, yes stevie, i know what ellipses are and i know how to count
dots......if it means all that much to you, i will forward your indignant
squeaks to the proximate source of the quoted materials.
oh, and don't take it personally, davie.....as every musician knows, you
just hit the individual keys in their turn.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

SNIP
It is a character flaw. But it has no more to do with any garbled
religious
nonsense than it does with your own incoherent misunderstanding of the
various brands of garbled religious nonsense. In the first place, no
brand
of Christianity is any kind of primitive Judaism. In the second, there is
no good reason for the moderately educated individual in America to
suppose
that George Bush (pere or fils) knows any more about the distinctions
between Judaism and Christianity than you do. Nor should one make the
mistake of supposing that a professed dedication to one or the other,
coming
from a career politician coached be a cadre of professionals in a country
in
which we all know that anyone admitting to disdain such stupidity or even
simply ignore it, is sincere.

Meanwhile......

Serendipity rules the world. I just ran across these little gems*, which
seem most appropriate at a time like this:

"[society is] too big, too complex [for the average person to comprehend,
since most citizens are] mentally children or barbarians..."

"[fear is] an important element to be bred in the civilian population. It
is difficult to unite a people by talking only on the highest ethical
plane.
To fight for an ideal, perhaps, must be coupled with thoughts of
preservation."

"Truth and falsehood are arbitrary terms....There is nothing in experience
to tell us that one is always preferable to the other....There are
lifeless
truths and vital lies....The force of an idea lies in its inspirational
value. It matters very little if it is true or false."

Wolfgang
who will not be voting for a known liar in the upcoming elections
*a shiny new nickel apiece to whoever first correctly identifies the
sources
of the above quotes.......and no, it wasn't kennie.
and, yes stevie, i know what ellipses are and i know how to count
dots......if it means all that much to you, i will forward your indignant
squeaks to the proximate source of the quoted materials.
oh, and don't take it personally, davie.....as every musician knows, you
just hit the individual keys in their turn.



Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!. But you believe in shiney new nickels?

TL
MC

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

SNIP
It is a character flaw. But it has no more to do with any garbled
religious
nonsense than it does with your own incoherent misunderstanding of the
various brands of garbled religious nonsense. In the first place, no
brand
of Christianity is any kind of primitive Judaism. In the second, there is
no good reason for the moderately educated individual in America to
suppose
that George Bush (pere or fils) knows any more about the distinctions
between Judaism and Christianity than you do. Nor should one make the
mistake of supposing that a professed dedication to one or the other,
coming
from a career politician coached be a cadre of professionals in a country
in
which we all know that anyone admitting to disdain such stupidity or even
simply ignore it, is sincere.

Meanwhile......

Serendipity rules the world. I just ran across these little gems*, which
seem most appropriate at a time like this:

"[society is] too big, too complex [for the average person to comprehend,
since most citizens are] mentally children or barbarians..."

"[fear is] an important element to be bred in the civilian population. It
is difficult to unite a people by talking only on the highest ethical
plane.
To fight for an ideal, perhaps, must be coupled with thoughts of
preservation."

"Truth and falsehood are arbitrary terms....There is nothing in experience
to tell us that one is always preferable to the other....There are
lifeless
truths and vital lies....The force of an idea lies in its inspirational
value. It matters very little if it is true or false."

Wolfgang
who will not be voting for a known liar in the upcoming elections
*a shiny new nickel apiece to whoever first correctly identifies the
sources
of the above quotes.......and no, it wasn't kennie.
and, yes stevie, i know what ellipses are and i know how to count
dots......if it means all that much to you, i will forward your indignant
squeaks to the proximate source of the quoted materials.
oh, and don't take it personally, davie.....as every musician knows, you
just hit the individual keys in their turn.



Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!. But you believe in shiney new nickels?

TL
MC

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!. But you believe in shiney new nickels?

While a small boy, I once got hit in the nuts with a roll of shiny new
nickels. I defy anyone not to believe under similar circumstances.


Wolfgang
who has yet to be hit in the nuts by any god or any politician's high
principles.

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!. But you believe in shiney new nickels?

While a small boy, I once got hit in the nuts with a roll of shiny new
nickels. I defy anyone not to believe under similar circumstances.


Wolfgang
who has yet to be hit in the nuts by any god or any politician's high
principles.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:01:43 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

The force of an idea lies in its inspirational
value. It matters very little if it is true or false.


Arthur Bullard. The U.S. propaganda chief in WW I

g.c.