|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2007 : 18:45:48
|
I may not be here later to say this, so here goes: Told you so!
| President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president. |
Two sides of the same coin?
Bush said in an Oval Office interview. “No matter who the president is, no matter what party, when they sit here in the Oval Office and seriously consider the effect of a vacuum being created in the Middle East, particularly one trying to be created by al Qaeda, they will then begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy.”
To that end, Bush is institutionalizing controversial anti-terror programs so they can be used by the next president. |
This is predictive programing for the GOP base.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:03:02 [Permalink]
|
Hmmm. An "Examiner Exclusive" huh? Not quite the New York Time or Wasington Post. You're the boy who cried wolf, though, so I don't believe anything you say anymore about conspiracies grand or otherwise.
Edited to change sentiment |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 09/24/2007 19:10:43 |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:09:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Hmmm. An "Examiner Exclusive" huh? Not quite the New York Time or Wasington Post, but no doubt this is iron-clad proof that you're right.
|
You do not like the information, so you ad hom the source.
Critical think much?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:11:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Hmmm. An "Examiner Exclusive" huh? Not quite the New York Time or Wasington Post, but no doubt this is iron-clad proof that you're right.
|
You do not like the information, so you ad hom the source.
Critical think much? |
And if I quoted something from Mad Magazine or the Weekly World News, would you take it seriously? Again, as the boy who cried wolf, you have no credibility, and so when you cite things from less-than-reputable sources, it does nothing to prove your point. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:30:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Hmmm. An "Examiner Exclusive" huh? Not quite the New York Time or Wasington Post, but no doubt this is iron-clad proof that you're right.
|
You do not like the information, so you ad hom the source.
Critical think much?
|
Then it appears that Examiner is either a very conflicted news source or GWB is, or will be, working both sides.
"I think our candidate can beat her, but it's going to be a tough race," the president predicted in an Oval Office interview. "I will work to see to it that a Republican wins and therefore don't accept the premise that a Democrat will win. I truly think the Republicans will hold the White House."
|
So do we believe todays exclusive or what the examiner reported GWB saying one day ago. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:34:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
And if I quoted something from Mad Magazine or the Weekly World News, would you take it seriously? Again, as the boy who cried wolf, you have no credibility, and so when you cite things from less-than-reputable sources, it does nothing to prove your point.
|
So, a serious newspaper from a major American city; in your mind, is equal to MAD magazine.
I see, no ad hom here. |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:37:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Then it appears that Examiner is either a very conflicted news source or GWB is, or will be, working both sides.
"I think our candidate can beat HER, but it's going to be a tough race," the president predicted in an Oval Office interview. "I will work to see to it that a Republican wins and therefore don't accept the premise that a Democrat will win. I truly think the Republicans will hold the White House."
|
So do we believe todays exclusive or what the examiner reported GWB saying one day ago.
|
Beautiful, more predictive programing!
Thanks for continuing the point.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:55:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
And if I quoted something from Mad Magazine or the Weekly World News, would you take it seriously? Again, as the boy who cried wolf, you have no credibility, and so when you cite things from less-than-reputable sources, it does nothing to prove your point.
|
So, a serious newspaper from a major American city; in your mind, is equal to MAD magazine.
I see, no ad hom here.
|
No, Boy Who Cried Wolf, I was simply using an extreme example to show that there are cases where one can question a news source without it being an "ad hominem" attack. That you can't see that is, well, hardly surprising.
Secondly, when you actually read the article, it certainly doesn't support any thesis you've stated here. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 19:59:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
No, Boy Who Cried Wolf, I was simply using an extreme example to show that there are cases where one can question a news source without it being an "ad hominem" attack. That you can't see that is, well, hardly surprising.
Secondly, when you actually read the article, it certainly doesn't support any thesis you've stated here.
|
This is an ironic post. You ad hom me, whilst defending your ad hom of another.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:12:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
No, Boy Who Cried Wolf, I was simply using an extreme example to show that there are cases where one can question a news source without it being an "ad hominem" attack. That you can't see that is, well, hardly surprising.
Secondly, when you actually read the article, it certainly doesn't support any thesis you've stated here.
|
This is an ironic post. You ad hom me, whilst defending your ad hom of another.
|
But you ARE the Boy Who Cried Wolf! (And BTW, me calling you the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" isn't really an ad hom since I'm not saying that the argument is untrue because of you; I'm casting doubt because of the impact of the news as compared to the reputation of the paper.) It would be fun to discuss real issues with you, but you have time and again posted the most dubious material claiming this conspiracy or that and it's all been bunk. Remember your lame anti-Ron Paul thread, where you tried to suggest that there was a conspiracy to keep out real Ron Paul voters out of a straw poll? Rubbish! Or even more recently, where you had some stupid You Tube clip about "grandmothers" being arrested just for reading the constitution-- come one! Time and again you post crap. That's fine, of course, except when you want us to take you seriously. And why should we? Here's some "exclusive" from a third-rate (if that) DC newspaper making some claim that may or may not jibe with the things you're saying, and we're supposed to believe it? Seriously?
And of course, an ad hominem critique isn't necessarily an invalid critique per se. If a man were to claim some bold new understanding of the Bible, and I said "but this guy has never had any formal training in Biblical Hebrew or Greek ever" that's a rather valid critique. If I said, of course that he's wrong because he's bald (or wears glasses, or doesn't own a TV, or whatever), that would be less valid. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:48:59 [Permalink]
|
The article opens with:
| "President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president." |
But the story actually says:
| "In an interview for the new book "The Evangelical President," White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said Bush has "been urging candidates: 'Don't get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically.' " |
In other words, Josh Bolten says Bush is speaking advice to all the Democrats. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Democrat. Therefore, according to the Examiner, Bush is: | "providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton" |
(and every other Democrat.)
This could also serve as a bit of disinformation designed and launched by Bolten via his book to dissuade potential voters who hate Bush from leaning toward Hillary, or whoever becomes the eventual Democratic nominee.
Hillary has already said she doesn't favor a total pullout and, as a majority of Americans are against the war, the purpose behind taking what amounts to attributed and general Bush "advice" and spinning it directly toward Hillary is muddy.
. |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 21:04:02 [Permalink]
|
This was an intentional use of the same term in both posts as the two posts are complimentary.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 21:09:30 [Permalink]
|
You can put them together if you would like.
It is fortuitous for my dual point concerning the parties working together and engaging in advertising for the benefit of both that these two stories came out about the same time.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2007 : 04:56:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Beautiful, more predictive programing!
Thanks for continuing the point.
|
In light of chippewa's post, to which you did not respond, are you backing away from the Examiner's exclusive "Bush advises Hillary".
I see it as Bush just wanting the next president to carry on his programs in the fight against terrorism. That he is convinced that his approach is the right approach. That any deviation would be a mistake. We will just have to keep an eye open for the tenor of his comments concerning the same as the end of his term gets closer. I predict Dire Warnings of Apocalypse. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2007 : 14:43:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Beautiful, more predictive programing!
Thanks for continuing the point.
|
In light of chippewa's post, to which you did not respond, are you backing away from the Examiner's exclusive "Bush advises Hillary".
I see it as Bush just wanting the next president to carry on his programs in the fight against terrorism. That he is convinced that his approach is the right approach. That any deviation would be a mistake. We will just have to keep an eye open for the tenor of his comments concerning the same as the end of his term gets closer. I predict Dire Warnings of Apocalypse.
|
You have a point, but I think Bush's intentions are a lot more Machiavellian. I think Bush's concerns for maintaining the status quo of Republican war policy no matter who is elected in 2008 are not based on a concern for what he sees as the best way to defend the American people, no matter how misguided. He cares nothing for the average American. (Witness Katrina, cut or distorted social programs, children left behind, and many other examples.) I think that Bush, i.e. Cheney and the power brokers behind the Bush White House are actually concerned with tacitly maintaining international terror as a treat and military interventionism for their own personal autocratic political power as well as the financial gain of big oil and other corporations that back them. I strongly suspect this to be their actual hidden motivation.
. |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Bush Advises Hillary!
