DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN

by Amazing 69 Replies latest jw friends

Amazing

Hi Seeker: You make some good points, and I am enjoying this exchange. I think that for Bush, in the heat of the moment I will cut him a little slack that he is focused, and made to braod a statement.
Were I to judge people's intellect by the stupid things said, I would first have to condemn myself. Clinton, for example, being the so-called smart guy he is, once debated the meaning of the word 'is' and 'sex' when giving serious deposition testimony. Looking at it, it sounds very idiotic, but that is what he said. Clinton was never under this level of pressure that Bush is in now, that is, until he testified about his involvement with Monica, and he too made blunders with his words.
When Clinton was President, I found mnyself criticizing everything about the man, and blaming almost everything on him. I finally had to step back and ask myself some serious questions - and in so doing - I had to admit that most of my dislike for the man came from my underlying disagreement with his politics. Once I was able to do that, then he did not look so bad, except for a few items that I must hold against him.
I am not sure what part of the country you are from, but certain regions have a style that to an onlooker can seem rather too laid back and/or dull. I was raised in Southern California, but my family was from Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Missippi, and Florida. They had that slow southern style, with extra word whiskers, a drawl, etc. It can be nice to be around while wearing a straw hat, barefoot, chewing tobacco, and having a brew. But, in a more serious, big city and political arena, it can appear that the person is not the brightest light in the room.
I agree, taken all by itself, saying that he will rid the world of evil-doers is idiotic, much like some statement that could be found in a Watchtower article. But, taken in the context of his new mission to make war on terrorism, the heat of the moment, the passions for dealing with this serious act, and the need to act quickly, it is an understandable statement, even if not precise. And certainly not a statement that will cause any harm.
Now, what you really missed was a statement that Bush made yesterday that was really cool, but fraught with danger in some ways - he made reference to old west "wanted dead of Alive" posters when discussing Osama Bin Laden. Now that was a classic for the history books. Also, Ronald Reagan got him butt in a cling when he made the off record comment that he had outlawed Russia, and bombing begins in 5 minutes. Unfortunately, unkown to Reagan, the microphone was still on and it went out over the airwaves. That was plain foolish. But, it does not mean he a not intelligent. Rather, he is human.
My favorite political idiot was Alexander Hague who never made sense, but who tried to take control of the government when Reagan was shot by saying, "I'm in charge here." No, he forgot that the Vice President takes charge. But old generals just can't help but try and run the show. Yet, can I really say that Hague is stupid or uneducated or unintelligent? Not really.
Thanks again, I do enjoy discussions with you, and I think it is healthy to have differences of opinion. - Amazing
Utopiano Reformato

AMAZING:
I want to complement you on your excellent demeanor. You have maintained a lofty composure throughout this heated topic and displayed mature qualities during the exchanges.
A nice example of productive, informative interchange, despite differing opinions.
Seeker

Amazing,
No, I didn't miss the "dead or alive" quote, and also thought it was not the best thing to say. And I agree with you, Alexander Haig's moment of truth goes down as one of the great gaffs in political history. He was ridiculed for that for years.
Seeker

DannyBear
You never cease to amaze me. You claim unabashed that you are intellegent, yet you make statements as if written by in stone because you say so. Well sir, you have no corner on absolute truth.
Never said I did. That is the nature of a discussion board. I offer my opinion, and you offer yours. We both think we are right, so we state things that way. This is wrong...how?
Secondly when anyone on almost any subject, take a stand, and clearly indicates it is what they believe, you for some reason, have to generalize that belief, by indicating there are 'two sides to everything', gee thanks Seeker, as if we do not understand a basic tenant of human nature.
"Anyone"? "On almost any" subject? Are we talking about this discussion board? Of the thousands of posts, and dozens of topics, I jump into how many of them?
As for reminders that there are two sides to the story, I only do this when it appears someone has forgotten this "basic tenant of human nature." It doesn't happen that often, despite your claims.
What bother's and disturbes me, is this open, magnanomous spirit you seem to champion. I can't really remember you ever taking a definite stand on any subject. It must be nice to just go wherever the wind takes you today. The real world would be in utter confusion, with no firm direction or laws, if everyone adopted your philosophy.
That is not my philosophy. As you say, you "can't really remember" me taking a definite stand. Perhaps if you read my comments more often you'll see it. My friends know where I stand, based on what I say. I have strong personal opinions on many subjects, all of which form a consistent life philosophy. The fact that most people polarize to extremes doesn't negate my consistent middle position.
Your willing to let people malign, call you abusive names, your willing to overlook anyone and everyones faults, you want to take the side of anyone that appears to be a victim of decision maker's. You want to be good to anyone, no matter who. You want American's now to think about terrorists, in this broad all encompasing way, you want us to generalize. You want us to forget about this little event WTC. You want us to think on some grandiose plain, well it may sound good to your ear's and to a personal slanted view of what should be, but the real world isn't that way.
I don't want people to "forget about this little event WTC", and I dare you to find words of mine that indicate this! I lost neighbors in this disaster! I can still smell the smoke from the fires each night! How dare you slander me this way!
The fact that even in this time of extreme propaganda and groupthink I can still see the world as shades of grey, with a few areas of extreme darkness, doesn't make me someone who is generalizing. It means I am thinking about things on several layers, not only on the surface.
I would be hard pressed to rely on your concepts, to give any kind of leadership, in a crisis situation. I would not want anyone with your view of the world, standing next to me under attack. I would have no confidence that you would act swift, to defend me, or to carry out the will of the majority. Sometimes the majority wins Seeker. Sometimes individuals sacrifice their own personal will, to fulfill a duty to the majority.
LOL, boy do you not know me! In real life, I am a natural leader, a person that others draw to automatically, and someone who is calm in the face of a crisis. You don't know me, or you would know that not only am I exactly the kind of person you would want by your side in a crisis, but that I would act swiftly to carry out the will of the majority. Check out my posts on 9/11 on this board, and see if you notice a difference in tone during the midst of the emergency that day, and then apologize for your slander.
I should think you are always in a state of flux, never knowing what your real beliefs are, just open to whatever sounds the least offensive.
I am the exact opposite. I know precisely what I want, and what I believe. You just don't know me. To be fair to you, I never reveal my whole self on this board for anonymity purposes. But those who do know me know how laughable your view of me is.
Amazing

Hi Seeker: After Alexander Hague's gaff, a joke circulated around that went something like this:
What does ROnald Reagan say to the White House staff when he and Nancy go away for the weekend? "Please turn the lights down, keep the doors locked, and ... don't forget to feed Hague."
Amazing
DannyBear

Seeker,
For someone who seems to pride himself in always taking 'the middle ground', at least I will give you this; your use of the 'slander' several times in your post, is indicative of what I was trying to get across.
You blow your own horn, regarding your intellegence, your leadership capablities, you always refer to those who know you, and how different you are in real life. Unfortunately this medium is not one to one real life, so all anyone can do is read what you say. Period (an expression you use often).
Get off your high horse, with the 'slander' blather, if you are who you claim to be, then own up to a differing view, show me how my words in any way can be interpreted as slander, I made observations based upon your own words here on this forum. Surely you won't make me dredge up your words directed to Skally, wherein you displayed all of these traits I describe. Slander my friend is false accusations, based upon no facts or reference. Your defense is 'my friends know me', sorry a no winner in court. On top of that Seeker, if you can't take any review of your conduct, then you just ratified my statements.
A pretty big ego, to not even allow the words to penetrate, just declare me a slanderer, really a nice touch.
I can see that you can whip out your indignation, when people cross the boundary Seeker sets for holding the middle of the road, but you can't take it when someone, confronts you on its merit.
Maybe we should just call any type of exchange, a no win, for either of us. To bad you can dish it up, but can't take it in return.
Danny
Julie

Message from Seeker to DannyBear:
[I have reached my posting limit, and am asking one of my friends to post this on my behalf] You are being unfair and twisting my words. My cry of "Slander" was in reference to this sentence about me: "You want us to forget about this little event WTC." That really is a false acccusation, and one without merit or evidence. It is also grossly unfair, given what I have been through this past week. You wish me to prove this is slander? How shall I do this? It would be like me claiming you torture dogs. How would you prove otherwise in an online setting? All I can say is that my posts showed concern for the events last week, and I personally felt concern, and sadness, and depression, and anger, and resolve over these events. My city was attacked. I can see and smell the smoke, not on TV, but in the air over my head. To say I wish people to forget is slander.
I most certainly can "take it", as I have demonstrated over the years of posting. What happened with Scally is nobody's business but our own since it occurred during private conversation. I will not violate her privacy, but your comments indicate you truly don't have the full story. I won't discuss it with you. There is a reason she drew out of me the reaction she did -- she is the only person to get such a reaction from me since I ceased to be a JW. As such, this is atypical, and resulted from an extraordinay event, and thus cannot be used as a measure of my typical behavior.
Your characterization of me is false. However, you are willing to think whatever you like about me, as it is of no lasting concern to me. I will, however, object if you publicly slander me, as my reputation here dies rise and fall, as you said, on what is said here. I only brought in the idea of my friends to indicate to you that you are wrong. I cannot prove it unless we meet in real life, at which point you would understand what I said is actually true, even if you don't care for my political ideas
DannyBear

Seeker,
Here's what you said:
***Today, the Christians will viciously condemn what happened last week in this country, and vow revenge. But they will also support and defend all the atrocities that the Israelites did in the Bible. "That's different," they say, "God was behind them." Yeah? Well that's what bin Laden says today, so skip the excuses. Nobody wants to hear about a bloodthirsty God who supports the death of innocents.***
Well how should, anyone,(not just christians) condemn what happened, Seeker? Non viciously, with a whimper, perhaps a letter to the editor?
Prior to this you make mention of Bin Laden's warning to America. Alright so what, he gave a warning, between the lines, you could have inserted any 'group' or religion. Even though you excused your comments in the opening to be controversial, you still left a big gaping hole in your premise, what about those of us, who do not fall into any of your slots(christian,etc). You overall tone was that anyone who calls for blood, is not really considering all the warnings etc. Ladin gave, leaving the rest of us dumb shmucks who want to personally sqeeze this guys 'nuts', saying to ourselves I guess Seeker thinks anyone who takes this violent response is simply like your every day Christian fanatic.
Sorry if I got another message you did not intend. But that is the way I saw it.
You posted your remarks to Scally on a public board, some very abusive words, now you want them to be ignored. You would not hold me to that same standard.
Seeker, you and clashed I from the very begining, on these very grounds we are talking about, I wish it was different but it isn't. By you continuing to assert that I slandered you, you give way to much credit to my observation's.
***Your characterization of me is false. However, you are willing to think whatever you like about me, as it is of no lasting concern to me.***
If true, you really don't care what I have to say, or think about you, why on earth would you for a minute consider my comments as affecting your reputation? Certainly an overreaction based on your above comments.
Anyway Seeker, let me say it was not my intention to cause you all this upset and rankor, I just had to tell you how you were coming across to me. Yes I can sympathize with your feelings regarding the tragic events and I do. But some of your appeasing tone or middle of the road ideas, just burned my hide, I have just as firm beliefs as you in these regards, only they are overall 360 degree's away from yours. I had hope my questions, would have helped you see, not everyone is happy 'riding the middle of the road'.
I hope we can still be civil to one another.
Danny
Seeker

DannyBear
Here's what you said:
***Today, the Christians will viciously condemn what happened last week in this country, and vow revenge. But they will also support and defend all the atrocities that the Israelites did in the Bible. "That's different," they say, "God was behind them." Yeah? Well that's what bin Laden says today, so skip the excuses. Nobody wants to hear about a bloodthirsty God who supports the death of innocents.***
Well how should, anyone,(not just christians) condemn what happened, Seeker? Non viciously, with a whimper, perhaps a letter to the editor?
I was making a point that Christians who defend God's actions in the Bible are behaving the way bin Laden supporters are supporting last week's attacks. In case it wasn't clear, I am strongly condemning both cases in the strongest possible way. That was the whole point I was making.
Now I hope you see how slanderous it was of you to say to me: ""You want us to forget about this little event WTC." In fact, I wanted the exact opposite. All right, you misunderstood my intent, something that can happen in online conversations. But now that you know, I hope you see how offensive your words were to me.
Sorry if I got another message you did not intend. But that is the way I saw it.
Fair enough, but I hope you now see your misunderstanding in making your false accusation of me, a particular accusation I found deeply painful, for it is still an open wound to me. I don't throw accusations of "slander" around every day, but this was too personal, too false, too opposite of my own heart. As I said above, I was trying to make the exact opposite point, that Christians should be ashamed of their 'forgetting' about Bible atrocities, when they should be remembered as strongly as last week's events. So to be accused of the opposite of how I felt was painful.
You posted your remarks to Scally on a public board, some very abusive words, now you want them to be ignored. You would not hold me to that same standard.
Not true. The public comments I made to her are fair game, but I was talking about our private conversation which is no one's business. That is a consistent standard. The abusive words I made to her in public were made in the heat of anguish on my part. It was a long time before I had the strength to post here. I've never been so wounded, and it shocked me. So what I said was extreme, and not at all what is typical of me.
Seeker, you and clashed I from the very begining, on these very grounds we are talking about, I wish it was different but it isn't. By you continuing to assert that I slandered you, you give way to much credit to my observation's.
If you continue to assert I wish people to forget the WTC attack, after all I have explained, I will call it slander, which it would be. A particularly hurtful form of slander, given everyone's mood at the present, and my own heart pain.
***Your characterization of me is false. However, you are willing to think whatever you like about me, as it is of no lasting concern to me.***
If true, you really don't care what I have to say, or think about you, why on earth would you for a minute consider my comments as affecting your reputation? Certainly an overreaction based on your above comments.
Do you see the difference between what you "think" and what you "post" about me? As you said, all we can go on here is what is written. I don't care if you have a totally wrong idea about me in your head; it'll be your mistake, but it won't affect me. However, if you post something about me that is untrue, and particularly hurtful to say about me, it could influence someone who doesn't know me to think what you are saying is true. That could then cause them to attack me based on erroneous information. I will defend my public reputation. But you can think whatever you want. I've tried to explain your misunderstanding. If you continue to think ill of me, at least I've made my case to anyone else reading this exchange.
Anyway Seeker, let me say it was not my intention to cause you all this upset and rankor, I just had to tell you how you were coming across to me. Yes I can sympathize with your feelings regarding the tragic events and I do. But some of your appeasing tone or middle of the road ideas, just burned my hide, I have just as firm beliefs as you in these regards, only they are overall 360 degree's away from yours. I had hope my questions, would have helped you see, not everyone is happy 'riding the middle of the road'.
I hope the people who did this attack are killed. Is that not what you wish?
I hope we can still be civil to one another.
Always, as long as we both play by civil rules. I was surprised when this thread turned from a discussion of politics to a discussion of my character. I am used to attacking the argument, not the person. When you attack me personally, expect me to defend myself. I would expect no less from you. Be civil with me, and I will be civil with you. Even though I am still angry at you for what I strongly consider your continuing slanderous statement, I hope you can see that I still responded calmly and rationally. I reacted very strongly earlier because I was so shocked to see your false accusation, and couldn't imagine where it came from. Now I see it was a misunderstanding on your part, something that can happen online. As long as you acknowledge my true feelings on the matter, now that it has been brought to your attention clearly, there will be no harm done.
DannyBear

Seeker,
Thank you for clarifying your comments. Yes I really did read 'between the lines' on the comments involving Bin Laden.
I had hoped that since I had already on several occasions, pointe out our diverse beliefs, on killing, pacifisim, etc., that you would have interpreted my frustration, in the questions that I asked. I can assure you it was so far from 'slander' in my mind, the thought of ruining or effecting your reputation, wasn't even close, to the intent or feelings I tried to express. I really mean that Seeker.
I do appologize for my hurtful words.
I should not have brought up Scally, you two know all the facts, and it is really none of my business.
I hope that you will take my words as sincere, and recognize that I try for the most part to be fair. But I have what is common to most mankind from one time to another...'hoof in mouth disease'.
Extracting hoofs as we speak.
Danny

DICK, GORE, BUSH & COLIN

Share this