09.04.04
Posted in politics at 2:24 pm by
Watching the current campaigns bothers me a bit. It seems that neither candidate has really learned to take the meaning of a phrase in context. I know, it’s an easy slam to be able to pick one line out of a speech, twist it’s meaning and make another candidate look like she or he has egg on their face–but for crying out loud, I think this time around it’s gone a bit too far. (By the way, I’m making a concerted effort to be bi-partisan here so…bear with me.)
First of all, Senator Kerry. President Bush probably doesn’t need to be ripped a new asshole over his comments about whether or not the war on terror can or cannot be won. You know, to pick out a few times where he says that we will win the war and then–conversely–to hear him say that we may never win this war, let’s grant the poor president a bit of slack. Look at the overall message, when he said what he said. For example, when the President said that the war may never be won, he was speaking of defeating the concept of terrorism on the whole. It is not likely that we’ll ever be able to so brainwash everyone in the world into believing in our brand of capitalism that we ever will be able to defeat the concept of terrorism. When President Bush said we were (or would be) victorious, he was talking about dismantling the threat of al Queada. Now whether you agree or not that we can defeat al Queada the way the President proposes, that’s a legitimate question. Senator Kerry, if you’re such an intellectual, why not bring the big guns out and craft a rhetorical argument that carries weight. Please stop the pissing contest.
Of course…one can’t have a pissing contest by one’s self. (Or, at very least, you shouldn’t have a pissing contest by yourself!) President Bush and his minions play this game like champs. Partially, this is Kerry’s fault for not monitoring every word that he’s said carefuly and hawkishly since age 26. For example, mini me, er…Dick Cheney mentioned during his speech (or was it Zell Miller–the two have really ideologically blended in my mind) that John Kerry has said that he would never go to war without UN support. He did say this. He was 26 years old and protesting the Vietnam war. John Kerry is no longer 26, it’s no longer the era of the Vietnam war.
Another example, John Kerry’s “sensitive” approach to terrorism. Is Dick Cheney really so stupid to believe that this means that John Kerry will be treating Osama Bin Laden to tea and crumpets in the rose garden? John Kerry meant sensitive in another (perfectly acceptable) sense. Sensitive to the needs of oppressed nations, sensitive to the reasons that terrorists become terrorists, sensitive to not offending the French during most every campaign speech given, sensitive to creating friends internationally. It’s like Dick Cheney and the rest of the Bush clan wants me to believe that by “sensitive” John Kerry means that if Osama Bin Laden is ever caught, we’ll have him over to the national mall and given a spanking and asked not to do anything mean like 9/11 ever again. I’m sorry that I find it so hard to believe that but, Kerry risked his life for his country and volunteered for tours of duty in Vietnam–this doesn’t seem like the guy who’ll back away from a fight.
Anyhow, you can see how viciously context can be twisted. But the truth is–doing so makes a poor (though unfortunately believable) argument. Twisting context sets the groundwork for an argument infected by the straw man fallacy. Really, it’s a sad statement about what both politicians believe about the overall intelligence of the people of this country. They’re both telling us one of two things, one that we’re stupid and we’ll believe anything they say, or two, that they’re stupid and this is the kind of argument that sways them.
In a way, I’ll be rooting for option one in this pissing contest. I’d rather be thought stupid than be led by the stupid.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/04/a_pissing_contest_for_president/trackback/
Posted in politics at 2:24 pm by
Watching the current campaigns bothers me a bit. It seems that neither candidate has really learned to take the meaning of a phrase in context. I know, it’s an easy slam to be able to pick one line out of a speech, twist it’s meaning and make another candidate look like she or he has egg on their face–but for crying out loud, I think this time around it’s gone a bit too far. (By the way, I’m making a concerted effort to be bi-partisan here so…bear with me.)
First of all, Senator Kerry. President Bush probably doesn’t need to be ripped a new asshole over his comments about whether or not the war on terror can or cannot be won. You know, to pick out a few times where he says that we will win the war and then–conversely–to hear him say that we may never win this war, let’s grant the poor president a bit of slack. Look at the overall message, when he said what he said. For example, when the President said that the war may never be won, he was speaking of defeating the concept of terrorism on the whole. It is not likely that we’ll ever be able to so brainwash everyone in the world into believing in our brand of capitalism that we ever will be able to defeat the concept of terrorism. When President Bush said we were (or would be) victorious, he was talking about dismantling the threat of al Queada. Now whether you agree or not that we can defeat al Queada the way the President proposes, that’s a legitimate question. Senator Kerry, if you’re such an intellectual, why not bring the big guns out and craft a rhetorical argument that carries weight. Please stop the pissing contest.
Of course…one can’t have a pissing contest by one’s self. (Or, at very least, you shouldn’t have a pissing contest by yourself!) President Bush and his minions play this game like champs. Partially, this is Kerry’s fault for not monitoring every word that he’s said carefuly and hawkishly since age 26. For example, mini me, er…Dick Cheney mentioned during his speech (or was it Zell Miller–the two have really ideologically blended in my mind) that John Kerry has said that he would never go to war without UN support. He did say this. He was 26 years old and protesting the Vietnam war. John Kerry is no longer 26, it’s no longer the era of the Vietnam war.
Another example, John Kerry’s “sensitive” approach to terrorism. Is Dick Cheney really so stupid to believe that this means that John Kerry will be treating Osama Bin Laden to tea and crumpets in the rose garden? John Kerry meant sensitive in another (perfectly acceptable) sense. Sensitive to the needs of oppressed nations, sensitive to the reasons that terrorists become terrorists, sensitive to not offending the French during most every campaign speech given, sensitive to creating friends internationally. It’s like Dick Cheney and the rest of the Bush clan wants me to believe that by “sensitive” John Kerry means that if Osama Bin Laden is ever caught, we’ll have him over to the national mall and given a spanking and asked not to do anything mean like 9/11 ever again. I’m sorry that I find it so hard to believe that but, Kerry risked his life for his country and volunteered for tours of duty in Vietnam–this doesn’t seem like the guy who’ll back away from a fight.
Anyhow, you can see how viciously context can be twisted. But the truth is–doing so makes a poor (though unfortunately believable) argument. Twisting context sets the groundwork for an argument infected by the straw man fallacy. Really, it’s a sad statement about what both politicians believe about the overall intelligence of the people of this country. They’re both telling us one of two things, one that we’re stupid and we’ll believe anything they say, or two, that they’re stupid and this is the kind of argument that sways them.
In a way, I’ll be rooting for option one in this pissing contest. I’d rather be thought stupid than be led by the stupid.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/09/04/a_pissing_contest_for_president/trackback/
Captainwow said,
September 4, 2004 at 5:00 pm
I heard Bill Clinton recently say that most of the rhetoric surrounding the elections is meant for clouding the issues. I was suprised to hear him say that so plainly. The mud flinging and the pissing contests continue because it works. And it works because so many Americans buy into the whole thing. The problem isn’t only with the contestants but with the stadium full of people cheering the whole thing on.
Captainwow said,
September 4, 2004 at 5:09 pm
OH ya…
and great post, I like when people put things BACK in context.
Brandon said,
September 4, 2004 at 5:18 pm
Thanks Ginny. I’d personally love to see it just like it is…both Kerry and Bush fill up their tanks on beer, water, and Mountain Dew, whip out their dinkies and have at a pissing match…the driest candidate loses the presidency. Just think, we wouldn’t need to worry about dimpled chads!
Headless-in-England said,
September 4, 2004 at 7:05 pm
OH. MY. GOSH. Did you REALLY just say that?! LOL on the other side of the world! Anyway, the Captain is right (as usual). Both men know the issues and both could produce a reasonable argument - occasionally you’ll see this happen - just for second - in a presidential debate. The problem is Dennis Kucinich (sp?). Nobody knew what the hell he was talking about - or I should say 1% of the population knew what he was talking about - and that’s how many votes he got too. “Learned your lesson, big boys? Don’t bore us with smarts or try to make us think, all we want is to be reassured that we’re right and oh yeah, confetti and balloons are nice…”
Josh said,
September 4, 2004 at 10:17 pm
Brandon, you said: “First of all, Senator Kerry. President Bush probably doesn’t need to be ripped a new asshole over his comments about whether or not the war on terror can or cannot be won. You know, to pick out a few times where he says that we will win the war and then–conversely–to hear him say that we may never win this war, let’s grant the poor president a bit of slack. Look at the overall message, when he said what he said.”
I would’ve agreed with a week ago. Not any longer. I wrote a post on this very issue: http://www.turnspit.com/archives/week_2004_08_29.php#000301
Brandon said,
September 5, 2004 at 12:48 am
A great post, Josh, indeed! I’ll need to think upon it properly to give a good response.
Captainwow said,
September 5, 2004 at 2:28 pm
aww but chad is so cute with dimples.
oh, is that an old one? I’m sorry…. I couldn’t help myself.
grandpa stole bets said,
December 4, 2005 at 2:06 am
Program on the emergence of civilization.
“14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. ”
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.
The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.
AIDS in Africa.
Organizational Heirarchy/Levels of positioning.
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere
Terrestrial management/positioning:
4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans -
6. Mafia - the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.
Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying “He has more money than god.” There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says “I’m too old and rich for this.”
This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.
20 cent/hour Chinese labor, 50 cents for material.
An $80 sweater costs less than a dollar; homage, tribute kicked upstairs vindicates the creative accounting.
I don’t want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe. But these individuals become wealthy exploiting those they hurt.
They have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won’t help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help.
The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.
I offer an example of historical proportions:::
People point to Walmart and cry “anti-union”.
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family’s problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles.
Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people’s belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the indistry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.
The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.
I believe the coining of the term “Uncle Sam” was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton and WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.
Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals, malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they “decided” who they didn’t want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren’t their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.
Royalty is the right way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient’s hierarchical organization.
Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected.
Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people.
Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.
Jews maim the body formed in the image of “god”, and inflicted circumsision upon all other white people, as well as the evil that is Jesus Christ.
I think about how Jews (were used to) created homosexuality among Slavics, retribution for the Holocaust.
Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles.
What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church???
If it is their sinister motives that’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all?
Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings.
Their centuries of slavery in Egypt proves their disfavor.
The Jew leaders decided to prey on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite, a recurring aspect of the elite’s methodology.
Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil. The seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.
Since Buddism doesn’t recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Chinese representation is instead selected by the thrones.
Budda was the Asian’s Jesus Christ::: bad for the people. “They came up at the same time for a reason.”
Simpson’s foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. “Last one you ever suspect.”
“You’ll see lots of nuns where you’re going:::hell!!!” St. Wigham, Helloween VI, missionary work, destroying cultures.
Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.
I believe Islam is the one true religion, and those misled christians who attack “god”’s most favored people will pay dearly one day.
Jacke said,
December 4, 2005 at 9:09 am
grandpa stole bets writes:
“…Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil. The seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.
…I believe Islam is the one true religion, and those misled christians who attack “god”’s most favored people will pay dearly one day.”
In America you are allowed by our free speech rights to say anything you wish to say and you love to make use of our rights while demonizing us. If you believe our system is wrong, then stay out of our system. In our country the people CHOOSE who will lead it, but the people NEVER give up their right to dissent, to speak freely. Because of that system people like you can come in and say any darned anti-Semetic, anti-American hate filled bile they want.
You are duplicitous…raging against America, using the tools of our freedom against us…that is hypocritical on your part but you dare to call our God evil, our Savior evil!?
Who is it that is “preying” upon innocent people TODAY??? Which religion is seducing their OWN PEOPLE to BLOW THEMSELVES UP and take as many of the innocent poor, which you claim to want to make life easier for, with them???
At least the poor have a say in our government, you pretend your system of Islamo Fascism is better because it tries “to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles.” ???
In the “Christian” life this saying applies: “It takes one to know one” you are not a Christian and therefore, because you have not accepted Christ into your heart and do not have the Holy Spirit of God living in you, guiding you, you CANNOT know what you may THINK you know about Christianity.
Progressives, ARE YOU LISTENING? This is your enemy, not G.W. Bush.
Shteevie said,
December 4, 2005 at 8:56 pm
The post above yours was a little too rambling for me to take seriously.
But I don’t know if I am a progressive. Not sure what that means. I identify myself as a fundamentalist though.
Jacke said,
December 4, 2005 at 11:13 pm
Shteevie,
To me being Progressive means you are a liberal who is embarrassed about the label “liberal” so you like the new label of “Progressive” better. So, a progressive would be a politically liberal person. Of course, we all know that there are extremists of the liberal and the conservative political persuasions. If you aren’t a Progressive then I wouldn’t be talking to you, would I?
Now, regarding your first comment? I view that as part of the problem. A lot of people, and they are primarily liberal or progressive people, don’t seem to take the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously, just as you didn’t take the post above mine seriously because it was too rambling. I found it very insightful myself, I believe this was a case of an Islamic-Fascist laying it bare and being honest about how he feels about Americans, Christians and Jews. It may have been rambling, that’s true. Do you dismiss all ramblers, or just Islamo-Fascist ramblers, cuz if you dismiss all ramblers I might be in trouble too.
benjamin said,
December 5, 2005 at 12:38 am
Dude (dudette? You’re name’s too french for me to tell) - you are so right about the liberal/progressive thing - it’s just like how it’s just too much to say “blood-sucking undead greedy ass power-hungry satan worshiping ghoul” so we just call ourselves Republican instead….
benjamin said,
December 5, 2005 at 12:45 am
I would have added “assless-chap wearing”, but that’s the Libertarians…
Jacke said,
December 5, 2005 at 1:31 am
Yer jest tew sweet, Benjamin. Why don’t you tell me how you really feel?
Jacke said,
December 5, 2005 at 1:42 am
Just as an aside, I think it is interesting that offense seems to be taken over what I said about liberals, (which was mild in comparison to what you said, Benjamin) but no one but me, in the entire group which frequents this blog has had a single thing to say about these comments?:
“Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects.”
and:
“Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil.”
That is not to say that anyone agrees or accepts that view, it’s just interesting that no one else has commented on them, but geesh! If I say something about liberals and what they SEEM to think…eeeeeeeek!
zalm said,
December 5, 2005 at 4:57 am
Wait, you’re chiding us for not responding to that? Really?
Jacke, the comment you replied to is both delusional rambling and comment spam. Spam with this general format makes it through the filters here every once in a while. If you get the comments RSS feed, it’s not uncommon. This particular comment made it through verbatim on at least one other post, but it seems that Brandon caught that one and missed this.
Look, I know you seek to provide some more conservative seasoning in these parts, and Lord knows we probably need some. But it seems to me that there are plenty of ways to do so without calling us out because we chose to ignore delusional comment spam. Whatever your reasons might happen to be for doing it, if you continue to try to pick fights like this, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get treated sarcastically and not taken seriously.
And for the record, we tend to ignore rambling delusional fundamentalists of all creeds (cf anne robare). We’re egalitarian like that.
Brandon said,
December 5, 2005 at 10:07 am
Zalm’s right. The only reason I didn’t delete that comment straight off, is because you commented on it, Jacke. Frankly, I’d prefer we all not respond to spammers. But, if you must, it’d probably be best not to get upset with others’ ignoring that comment.
Jacke said,
December 5, 2005 at 11:02 am
Excuse me, but what is it, exactly, that makes this “grandpa stole bets” character a spammer as opposed to me, or Dufflehead or ninjanun or any other commentator on your blog? I consider a spammer as one who is trying to sell drugs, porno, a book…whatever. What is this guy selling, exactly?
Brandon said,
December 5, 2005 at 11:21 am
Are you serious, Jacke? You don’t know what makes this comment spam?
What hath his comment to do with my original post? Why would he have posted two identical comments to my blog? (I deleted one of them, but you’d responded to the other.)
What makes his comment spam? Its complete disregard for the content of this blog, its rambling nature, the fact that I’ve deleted several comments of identical content previously, the fact that this person has no intention of viewing nor taking part in the discussion subsequent to thier comment, all that makes this comment spam.
Jacke. Seriously. I like having you around, but going off on crap like this doesn’t earn you any friends, buy you any respect, and it certainly doesn’t add to your credibility–much to the contrary, rather.
I know it’s hard to just say, “Okay, in this situation, I was wrong.” I have a hard time saying that myself. But this time, you should just take it on the chin and let this discussion slide.
It didn’t start off going anywhere useful, and it’s going nowhere useful now.
Jacke said,
December 5, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Brandon, I was serious or I wouldn’t have asked. If I was wrong, then I was wrong. I noted that he had made more than one comment but, at the time, only had the time to read one of them when I replied. I had the intention of checking his other comments but you had removed them before I got a chance to do so, so I had no way of knowing that it was a repetitive comment. You say it was, I have no reason to doubt that. So, evidently, I was mistaken in my thoughts that this was a legitimate commentator. I assure you that I am in no way deluded enough to believe that I don’t make mistakes or am never wrong. As you said it isn’t always easy to admit, but I do make an effort to do just that, when warranted.
I am still, however, of the belief that, while rambling, this spammer meant every anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-Semitic comment he made. Ignoring that fact is not healthy, in my opinion.
Brandon said,
December 5, 2005 at 2:13 pm
I wasn’t going to ignore it, I was going to delete it.
Jacke said,
December 5, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Brandon, honestly, I am not just trying to argue with you, I am merely pointing out that people like “grandpa stole bets” exist. Ignoring or deleting them doesn’t make them cease to be. That is all I am saying…do you think I’m wrong!? Geesh!
Kevin said,
December 5, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Fair enough. But people who want to sell me a penis growth patch really exist too. I’m still going to delete their emails.
Brandon said,
December 5, 2005 at 3:17 pm
No, I don’t think you’re wrong.
I just don’t thing they’re particularly worth responding to for a number of reasons.
One, because responding to them, at least to a degree, legitimizes their presence.
Two, because in responding to them, we almost always oversimplify complex phenomena.
Three, because responding to them allows us a feeling that if we speak out against racism, anti-semitism, etc., we’re somehow able to put a checkmark by the “eliminate x-ism” box.
Four, because we all agree. The guy is a looney.
And, five, because it can take away from real, substatitive Kingdom building discussion.
Finally, deleting is not ignoring. That’s my point. Deleting is taking a substantive action. An action which, because I pay all the premiums and fees for this webspace, I have the authority to do–even if I exercize that authority with extreme care and trepidation.