#234221 - 20/09/2004 21:33
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
This guy hates Bush so much that I doubt money was a factor.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234222 - 20/09/2004 23:32
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I can't believe anyone believed that memo. Proportional fonts on a 1972 memo -- something that would have been written on a typewriter? Come on. Obvious fake from the moment I saw it.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234225 - 21/09/2004 00:20
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
LOL, who the hell is voting for Karl Rove? Conspiracy theories never die! I hope someone's kidding! Wow.
Edited by SE_Sport_Driver (21/09/2004 00:22)
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234226 - 21/09/2004 00:34
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
SE_Sport_Driver: Quote:
This guy hates Bush so much that I doubt money was a factor.
Yeah... While my poll asks what I aimed to be a rhetorical question, if I had to redo it, I guess would ask "Did the documents faxed to CBS originate with: The DNC, Karl Rove, Bill Burkett or None of The Above?"
Burkett made no attempt to appear a disinterested observer , and CBS with 10 seconds Googling could have confirmed that.
wfaulk:
Quote:
I can't believe anyone believed that memo. Proportional fonts on a 1972 memo -- something that would have been written on a typewriter? Come on. Obvious fake from the moment I saw it.
I never looked at these as I figured automatically that much more critical experts would. Too bad CBS couldn't be bothered. The performance of the electonic media in this country is soooo disheartening. Edward R. Murrow rolls over in his grave.
To the original rhetorical point of my poll: The AP was covering Bush's National Guard service. Other news outlets -- pack mentality at work -- were starting to join in. If I were Karl Rove and saw this forest fire heading my way, I can not think of a better backfire to light than these Burkett memos. While the ANG commander's secretary still says "That's pretty much what he (Killian) said" [my paraphrase] that story is now ancient history. Now thanks to CBS avarice, gullibility, negligence, incompetence, whatever, the story is about Burkett, unfounded attacks on Fearless Leader, about CBS, and about demands for an apology.
I would like to think that if the Dems wanted to do this and not have it discredited (and backfire), they would have found a proper typewriter. I can conceive that Burkett might have created these as indignant facsimiles of memos that *used* to exist, but what a bad call if so. My Rove screnario -- Burkett getting suckered -- I can't dismiss if only because of the great benefit the Bush campaign will have accrued from this fiasco, It is getting to the point that I think anybody on any side (but the Republican apparatus in particular!) would say and do anything given the absolute rightness of their cause.
I hate tinfoil hat movies like JFK, but memories of the mysterious Jack Ruby preoccupy me as we near November 2nd
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234227 - 21/09/2004 00:50
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
LOL, who the hell is voting for Karl Rove?
Ummmm, everybody who votes for GWB? Let me think about that. Unlike their boss, Rove and folks like Scooter Libby are reputed to be very clever! When it comes to mass deception, Shrub needs a tight script.
Quote:
Conspiracy theories never die! I hope someone's kidding! Wow.
I have served in the military -- 1095 days and not *one* sick day -- so I know that it is possible for complete idiots to rise to high rank. Maybe Burkett is one such if this forgery is his. But if Burkett really hates Bush as would seem to be the case, then it is remarkable that he has given the campaign such a favor.
Oh, and I showed up for all my physicals and drug tests, too.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234228 - 21/09/2004 01:04
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
This whole concept is absurd. Does any clear thinking person actually thinks that Karl Rove had something to do with this? I am no fan of the DNC, but even I would never accuse them of being behind this, and it makes far more sense for some low-level DNC person to have cooked this up than Karl Rove.
If Rove were to have done this, he would have had access to actual documents to use as a guide. The font and type setting issues are only the first layer of problems with this. Even if an era type writer were used, these documents would suffer from inaccuracies. I suspect Rove or Joe Lockhart would have done a much more convincing job. Just because this works perfectly for the Republicans doesn't imply that they are behind it.
I believe that what truly happened is that someone cooked this up (maybe Burkett) and gave it to the DNC and CBS. Both parties were blinded by their eagerness to "nab" Bush and ran with it. A week prior to the airing (just as CBS reportedly began production of the final piece) the DNC launched their "Fortunate Son" campaign. Nice timing.
I don't think either side knew or suspected they had fake papers. They were blinded by their hatred for Bush into thinking "it must be true". It reminds me of all the crazy theories about the Clinton's knocking off adversaries. Because they "knew" it was true before they even had the fake papers, they never bothered looking into it and ignored sources that didn't backup what they said. For the DNC, this is disgraceful, but expected in the politics in 2004 (sadly). For CBS, it is inexcusable. They systematically threw out any comments by people who disputed the documents or by people who might be sympathetic to Bush. Yet they built their story on testimony from people who clearly had an axe to grind with Bush. A journalism student in junior high would have done a better job at balancing sources. Even to this day, they are referring to Burkett as a "former guardsman" and don't mention he was in the Army guard, not the Air Force or that he has long campaigned against Bush. A Google search shows even more.
So, like I said, their hatred blinded them into ignoring the facts. Kind of like how someone's hatred for Karl Rove would make them think that HE did all this with his pinky finger at the side of his mouth! Or maybe it's just hard for Democrats to accept the fact that someone on "their side" was dumb enough to do this? Who is more fool, the fool or the fool who follows the fool? I'll vote for CBS.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234229 - 21/09/2004 01:21
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
First of all, nobody cares about this Guard duty. Just like nobody cares about Vietnam. I don't really care what two twenty somethings did years before I was born. The polls show that most voters agree.
I think you need to make up your mind. Is Bush this world plotter and master of lies to the US and the UN who allowed 9/11 so that he could gain great power and venge a plot to kill his father while making millions in oil money or is he a goof who can't tie his shoes? Seriously. You guys switch back and forth on this all the time. There are a lot of smart people on the BBS, but I suspect very few of them could fly a fighter jet, especially one built in the late 60's. No letter from your father will keep a plane in the air.
You think that Bush supporters are voting that Karl Rove had something to do with this in this BBS poll? Maybe I wasn't clear in what I wrote.
Yes, it is remarkable that Burkett (or whomever) did Bush a favor. Living your life through the prism of hatred will do that to you. Some call it karma.
I still can't get over this: Do you actually think that Karl Rove typed this up on his notebook and faxed this over to Burkett and sat back with his fingers crossed hoping that Burkett and whatever hapless news organization that he contacts would run with it ignoring any concerns brought up from within and then continue to stonewall for a week? Oh wait, I forgot, he must have called a few bloggers too and given them the tip. Oh yeah, he'd need Burkette's fax number (at Kinkos?) and a secure line. I'm still not sure why he chose now instead of the previous 3 times THIS YEAR this story has tried to break ground.... But Rove is so much more smarter than me, I guess only he knows.
PS - Congratulations on passing your physical.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234230 - 21/09/2004 01:27
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
It is getting to the point that I think anybody on any side (but the Republican apparatus in particular!) would say and do anything given the absolute rightness of their cause.
The GOP has pretty much presented itself in the same way throughout these last few years (with the exception of the Swift Boat guys) where as the Left has thrown everything but the kitchen sink, even calling Bush the new Hitler. I didn't see the Swifties at the RNC convention, but Moore and 527 organizers had front row seats at the DNC convention.
If you want to talk about "rightness of their cause" you must be referring to Fahrenheit 9/11 since the only way someone could have wrapped so many lies together and called it a movie is if they thought that their ends justified the means.
Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234231 - 21/09/2004 01:34
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
If Rove were to have done this, he would have had access to actual documents to use as a guide. The font and type setting issues are only the first layer of problems with this.
No, no, no, you're missing the point. It's a reverse-double-cross-psychology conspiracy theory. The republican party plants forged documents, which are fake enough to be quickly revealed as fakes, then, at some point over the next couple of weeks, they frame the democratic party for doing it. Thus discrediting the democratic party and sealing the republican in the white house. See, the documents had to look fake under that theory.
If you subscribe to those sorts of notions, that is. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234232 - 21/09/2004 01:56
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
This whole concept is absurd. Does any clear thinking person actually thinks that Karl Rove had something to do with this? I am no fan of the DNC, but even I would never accuse them of being behind this, and it makes far more sense for some low-level DNC person to have cooked this up than Karl Rove.
(I think in the first case above you meant "RNC"?)
I think of myself of a pretty clear-headed person and usually manage to avoid being mocked as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist, but I could not help post my little poll here -- thought it might stumulate a little discussion!. I don't *know* or have incriminating evidence with respect to *anyone*'s original involvement with the creation of the forgeries. What I could see, though, was that "The National Guard Years" was one place where the media was fueling up to look at Bush -- it was happening whether the Republicans liked it or not -- and it was one of the very few places where Kerry could compare himself favorably (Kerry *really* can't credibly attack Bush over the war).
Quote:
If Rove were to have done this, he would have had access to actual documents to use as a guide. The font and type setting issues are only the first layer of problems with this. Even if an era type writer were used, these documents would suffer from inaccuracies. I suspect Rove or Joe Lockhart would have done a much more convincing job.
To serve Lockhart's purposes, forgeries would need to be good forgeries -- they would need to "stick" until November 3rd. To serve Rove's purposes (in my conspiracy model!!) the forgeries would need to be pretty easy to spot in order to achieve the desired effect -- help discredit the included criticisms of W -- and neutralize subsequent W-TANG coverage in the last weeks before the election. The complete crudeness of the fakes argues against this to some extent, but what if better forgeries remained in dispute until November 3rd? Bad for W.
Quote:
Just because this works perfectly for the Republicans doesn't imply that they are behind it.
Amazing that it worked so well, though, and I wouldn't put it past them. Rove and crew are earning their paycheck. Of course they are facing one of the weakest candidates the Democrats could have put forward. Somebody who voted for the Iraq War and who has a years-long, CYA, middle-of-the-road congressional record with which they can be repeatedly whipped. They have aimed successfully at Kerry's strength -- the only thing he had to trumpet -- with the Swift Boat Veterans Still Pissed at Jane Fonda ads.
When I first heard of these memos and the questions of their authenticity, all I could think was "What a perfect one-two punch" on the whole war hero thing.
Quote:
I believe that what truly happened is that someone cooked this up (maybe Burkett) and gave it to the DNC and CBS. Both parties were blinded by their eagerness to "nab" Bush and ran with it. A week prior to the airing (just as CBS reportedly began production of the final piece) the DNC launched their "Fortunate Son" campaign. Nice timing.
It gets worse. I am all for "nabbing" Bush because I believe he deserves it ten times over, but CBS is going to get on my enemies list. What can living, honorable veterans of CBS such as Cronkite and Schorr think? Our democracy isn't screwe up enough?
Quote:
I don't think either side knew or suspected they had fake papers. They were blinded by their hatred for Bush into thinking "it must be true".
Well, funny thing is, it looks like it *is* quite true, but CBS just got an F on their exam for cheating.
Quote:
It reminds me of all the crazy theories about the Clinton's knocking off adversaries. Because they "knew" it was true before they even had the fake papers, they never bothered looking into it and ignored sources that didn't backup what they said. For the DNC, this is disgraceful, but expected in the politics in 2004 (sadly). For CBS, it is inexcusable. They systematically threw out any comments by people who disputed the documents or by people who might be sympathetic to Bush. Yet they built their story on testimony from people who clearly had an axe to grind with Bush. A journalism student in junior high would have done a better job at balancing sources. Even to this day, they are referring to Burkett as a "former guardsman" and don't mention he was in the Army guard, not the Air Force or that he has long campaigned against Bush. A Google search shows even more.
I won't try to dissuade you from hating CBS, but I hope you will allow me to hate them more if they manage to help re-elect Shrub -- the net effect of this tempest, IMO.
I am not the first to say it, but people who have decided that they are going to vote for Shrub don't really care that he was a dissolute, substance-abusing adolescent, rich kid and inconstant member of the military, because (drum roll...) he has been saved. And how can you fulfill the wonders of salvation if you weren't a sinner?
With the exposure of these fak/xed memos, what the Bush campaign gains is a shield against further media inquiry into his non-service and less negative play with the few remaining undecided voters in battleground states.
Quote:
So, like I said, their hatred blinded them into ignoring the facts. Kind of like how someone's hatred for Karl Rove would make them think that HE did all this with his pinky finger at the side of his mouth! Or maybe it's just hard for Democrats to accept the fact that someone on "their side" was dumb enough to do this? Who is more fool, the fool or the fool who follows the fool? I'll vote for CBS.
Just to clarify. I am not a Democrat. I will likely choke back my own vomit as I voite for Kerry. But then again, I would likely vote for a rusty faucet over Shrub. New uplifting slogan "Kerry: Not sure he'll do better, but he can't do worse!"
Your mockery of my harping on Rove leaves me feeling you are being a bit naive. George Bush said he was *very* interested in finding out who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak. This was likely either Rove or Libby. Hmmmm, it doesn't seem that Bush has gotten to the bottom of that. Come to think of it, I think he was lying again. He values the Rove/Libby counsel too much to have them go to jail.
Maybe it is all those Watergate hearings I watched on TV. They probably rotted my brain.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234233 - 21/09/2004 02:06
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
.If you subscribe to those sorts of notions, that is
Notice I haven't offered to wager anyone!
....but if your job involves a lot of media exposure, if you see a punch coming, best to raise your hand to block it. You may break a few fingers, but not your nose.
Man I gotta stop typing and get back to my anatomy textbook. I only scored a 25 percent, but Harvard just called and they are taking me as a Neurosurgery Resident!
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234234 - 21/09/2004 02:31
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
You guys switch back and forth on this all the time.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Switch back and forth on what? Are you saying that we're not allowed to present multiple arguments of why Bush sucks and have to stick to only one? But there's so many to choose from!
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234235 - 21/09/2004 02:48
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/12/2001
Posts: 868
Loc: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
Is Bush this world plotter and master of lies to the US and the UN ... or is he a goof who can't tie his shoes?
He is a goof who can not tie his shoes who happens to be a front for people that are world plotters and masters of lies like Rove and Cheney and Wolfowitz and Ashcroft. Perhaps "front" is too strong a word, but anyone who thinks that Bush is the one doing all the thinking and planning in the Whitehouse seriously needs to look a bit closer at who is his administration is and how what they have publically advocated for many years has come to pass.
_________________________
Ninti - MK IIa 60GB Smoke, 30GB, 10GB
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234236 - 21/09/2004 05:15
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
First of all, nobody cares about this Guard duty.
True. What people care about is that his failure to come clean on his Gaurd duty is indicative of the systemic lying and general all-round weaseliness of him, and his administration. The saddest thing is that there's so much lying, weaseling, and general incomptence (I don't include his administration in the incompetence) from the man (and I use that term loosely), that the anti-Bushies could easily find something both more recent, and more relevant, to hammer him on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234237 - 21/09/2004 09:58
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
(I think in the first case above you meant "RNC"?)
No, I meant the DNC. I simply was saying that there is a stronger case that the DNC was behind this yet I still don't think they were the cause. To point the finger at the RNC, you have to suspend logic to connect all the dots.
Quote:
To serve Rove's purposes (in my conspiracy model!!) the forgeries would need to be pretty easy to spot in order to achieve the desired effect
Right, but they'd need to be "good enough" to get by CBS or whoever got them and the document experts they hired. These documents clearly were not good enough to get by a single document expert. The only person who okay'd these things was just looking at the signature. There is simply no way that someone could have writen these "bad enough to be discovered" and the "hopes CBS ignores how bad they are until after they goto air." In order for your theory to work, Rove would have had to know that CBS would drop the ball and that's not possible. The risk of being caught far out weigh the benefits.
I'll mention again, this story has been brought up at least 6 times before, three times this year already. It has never stuck because people don't care and there is no evidence other than "he said / she said". Why on earth would a campaign manager choose NOW to do something like this for a story that won't stick when his candidate already has a double digit lead in several polls? Again, you have to throw all of this out the window for this to work.
Quote:
Rove and crew are earning their paycheck.
Not a good arguement. There are just as many people on the other side that are earning a paycheck.
Quote:
Swift Boat Veterans Still Pissed at Jane Fonda
lol, nice one! I really think the thing that is going to kill Kerry's chance is when the swifties bring up Kerry's testimony against the war and his meetings in Paris with the Viet Cong. (It's actually started already, but nobody is listening yet).
Quote:
Shrub
? ? Who's that? Oh wait, now I get it. I guess I missed that one.
Quote:
With the exposure of these fak/xed memos, what the Bush campaign gains is a shield against further media inquiry into his non-service and less negative play with the few remaining undecided voters in battleground states.
I totally agree with you here, but that is the "effect" of this whole thing, it's not the "cause" of it. It's kinda funny how Ashcroft was the Darth Vader back in the day, then it was Rumsfeld, then Cheney. Now "Karl Rove" is this evil mastermind.
I think the root of this is that it's hard for you to believe that someone on "your side" was dumb enough to do this and that it is going to backfire so badly on Kerry's chance to win. Seriously, that's a hard pill to swallow. Oh the irony! 
I roll my eyes at some supporters of Bush, I suggest you do the same towards Burkett.
I think you'd have a better case saying that Bush started the hurricanes so that it would keep Kerry out of the news while Bush had a double digit lead in current polls. Once you have a lead, it's okay to stay out of the news and ride that lead. Yes! It all makes sense now! 
Quote:
our mockery of my harping on Rove leaves me feeling you are being a bit naive. George Bush said he was *very* interested in finding out who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak.
I really don't see the relation here. Last I heard this was under investigation and to be honest, the only person that can end this is Novak. But you cite THIS as proof that Rove planted these documents? That's a serious stretch.
Just because I prefer to believe a theory that actually makes sense and doesn't require dozens of uncontrollable circumstances to fall into place perfectly doesn't make me naive.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234238 - 21/09/2004 10:00
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
You can list as many reasons as you want. Actually, you can save the time, I just browse the Off Topic threads. But my point is that he can't be both an idiot and a master of evil. You gotta pick one.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234239 - 21/09/2004 10:02
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: ninti]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Oh okay. Good one. I forgot about Wolfowitz too. Silly me.
Who would think that a president of the US would have advisors? I'm disgusted. I prefer a president who has a pollster like Dick Morris to tell me what way that wind is blowing.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234241 - 21/09/2004 13:01
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
I'm late for work... hopefully there won't be 20 replies by 5pm!
Well, let me add one more log on the fire.
I'm voting for Kerry this year, and unlike others, I won't be holding my nose. While I don't think Kerry is the best man in America for the job (I was hoping Wesley Clark would win the nomination) I think he's a much smarter, decisive, and determined leader than he's been given credit for. I just think he's run an atrocious campaign, not uncommon for someone's first time around, and especially against an incumbent in such a divided voting base. Kerry has had his work cut out for him, and has not risen to the challenge of defeating the Republican attack machine that's so good at dividing the voters and discrediting the opposition. Kerry and his people, I'm afraid, are no good at playing dirty politics.
CBS deserves to lose every viewer they have for running with this story. The Democrats, to their credit, didn't latch onto it too strongly, not nearly as strongly as the Bush people latched onto the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth." But they also have done a terrible job of responding to those attacks, and an even worse job of proving that the Bush campaign has nothing else to stand for except attacking Kerry's Vietnam service. (And if you think Rove isn't attached to those Swift Boat clowns, I've got a bridge to sell you.)
So, after the smoke clears, we're left with two candidates who have an agenda for what they'd do if elected President. Sad thing is, one of them is ALREADY President, and doesn't seem to recognize that. His campaign slogan must be "No, really, this time I'll get it right. Trust me." If all of this sideshow about Vietnam service, National Guard duty, etc. can finally die down, and the two candidates square off in the debates, I think we'll get a much better picture for who's best to lead this country. I have no question that Kerry has the better ideas, and the wherewithal to execute them... Unfortunately, I don't have nearly as much faith in his ability to win an election in a voting base that's so brainwashed by the best dirty politicians in America.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234242 - 21/09/2004 13:35
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
There is simply no way that someone could have writen these "bad enough to be discovered" and the "hopes CBS ignores how bad they are until after they goto air." In order for your theory to work, Rove would have had to know that CBS would drop the ball and that's not possible. The risk of being caught far out weigh the benefits.
Don't form the idea that I am trying to convince anyone that Burkett didn't fabricate these, but the point of my poll is to keep open consideration of other options given the surprisingly fortuitous results for some.
Burkett, I hear, now says that he pressed CBS to validate the faxes. Liar? Not liar? I don't know. If I was familiar with the Texas political landscape including Burkett's long-standing grievance, how difficult would it be to craft forged memos and drop them in the mail with complete anonymity to Burkett: "Bill, I appreciate your struggle. Here are some things I think you'd be interested in. I can't come forward publically because my family blah, blah blah....."
Burkett come forward and is instantly discredited? Win
CBS (blind fools) comes forward and is discredited? Win
Quote:
Why on earth would a campaign manager choose NOW to do something like this for a story that won't stick when his candidate already has a double digit lead in several polls? Again, you have to throw all of this out the window for this to work.
No not really. I don't know what their pollsters tell them. Maybe they tell Rove that the 30+ year-old Navy-versus-TANG is one of the few areas they need to focus on to drop Kerry in battleground states.
Quote:
I really think the thing that is going to kill Kerry's chance is when the swifties bring up Kerry's testimony against the war and his meetings in Paris with the Viet Cong.
Who will the SBVFT crop out of the picture or edit out of the videotape this time? Henry Kissinger?
Quote:
(It's actually started already, but nobody is listening yet).
Methinks I am not listening to the right radio stations.
Quote:
It's kinda funny how Ashcroft was the Darth Vader back in the day, then it was Rumsfeld, then Cheney. Now "Karl Rove" is this evil mastermind.
You are saying that because I am mentioning poliical strategist Rove -- the producer/director of "John McCain's Black Baby!" -- in the appropriate home-stretch election context, that I have somehow forgotten about all of the other evil, arrogant bastards you have mentioned? Looks like some sort of a straw man or misdirection to me.
Quote:
I think the root of this is that it's hard for you to believe that someone on "your side" was dumb enough to do this and that it is going to backfire so badly on Kerry's chance to win. Seriously, that's a hard pill to swallow. Oh the irony!
Double-spaced telegram to Brad: CBS, Burkett, Kerry and the DNC aren't on "my side".
Quote:
I think you'd have a better case saying that Bush started the hurricanes
Straw man. I can say with confidence that Bush did not start the recent hurricanes. He started something much worse.
Quote:
I really don't see the relation here. Last I heard this was under investigation and to be honest, the only person that can end this is Novak.
Novak, oh or that guy who is supposed to be in charge and who *says* he is interested in getting to the bottom of it, but who would, in reality, enjoy the product of his people's criminal activity. No firings of the loyal in this White House.
Quote:
Just because I prefer to believe a theory that actually makes sense
The "Burkett done it" theory is plausible, but I am not sure I am going to get too attached to any particular theory quite yet.
Quote:
and doesn't require dozens of uncontrollable circumstances to fall into place perfectly doesn't make me naive.
Dozens of uncontrollable circumstances? No. Just a no-lose/could-win roll of the dice. See above.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234243 - 21/09/2004 14:24
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Home for lunch!
Well, I see things differently (almost polar!) in that I think the Democrats have run the dirty campaign here ala 527's and Micheal Moore. The Republicans have just been more successful. Also, I think it's the very things that Bush stands for that generate so much anger towards him, so it's hard to say he doesn't stand for anything. Saying he doesn't stand for anything you like might be more accurate. Kerry on the other hand stands for "Anyone But Bush". The Bush haters come from all sorts of backgrounds, so it's hard for him to have one solid image without losing part of that "base".
However, like you said, all of this will mean nothing very soon. It's all going to come down to the debates.
One problem I see for Democrats in the debates is that they picture Bush has being an idiot. Because of this, they've lowered our expectations of him. Now, he just has to do "okay" and he will have done better than we thought he would have. That will win him some votes.
I can't stomache Kerry only because he sticks his finger in the wind and votes or makes speaches based on what he think people will like on that given day. That's not leadership by any stretch. That's pandering.
I really wish that Lieberman would have been nominated by you guys! I know he's not pretty, but I respect him.
EDIT: Jim, it's only a 20 minute lunch so I'll get to you later!
Edited by SE_Sport_Driver (21/09/2004 14:25)
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234244 - 21/09/2004 14:39
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Well, both of us are simply speculating so there are only a few things I wanted to reply to..
Quote:
Double-spaced telegram to Brad: CBS, Burkett, Kerry and the DNC aren't on "my side".
I assumed all five parties want Bush to lose the November Presidental election.
Quote:
The "Burkett done it" theory is plausible, but I am not sure I am going to get too attached to any particular theory quite yet.
Fair enough. We're only 2 weeks into this thing, it could get much more interesting. Your posts did come off as supporting the Rove conspiracy theory, but it seems you are just supporting the "plausibiity" of it. I think it's a waste of time and just adds to the straw city of conspiracy theories against the Bush administration, but we'll see what comes out in the news in the following weeks. My only concern is that regardless of what light is shed on this, people will still cling to "it's Bush's fault!"
Quote:
Dozens of uncontrollable circumstances? No.
Actually, yes. If Rove did this, he would have had no control over CBS or any of the people that looked at this thing that let it goto air. He would have to "hope" they wouldn't do a 20 second Google search on Burkett. He would have to "hope" they would ignore interviews with the family of the comanding officer or any other Guardsmen who served with Bush. He would also have no control over CBS standing by their "impeachable" sources who say Bush was "selected not elected."
Quote:
Just a no-lose/could-win roll of the dice. See above.
Could win? Only if all of these peices that he would have no control over fall into place. No-lose? Are you serious? Him being exposed in such a fraud would be about as bad as Watergate.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234245 - 21/09/2004 14:49
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Kerry on the other hand stands for "Anyone But Bush". The Bush haters come from all sorts of backgrounds, so it's hard for him to have one solid image without losing part of that "base".
I think you're wrong. No matter what platform he takes, he'll still not be Bush, and that's enough.
Quote:
One problem I see for Democrats in the debates is that they picture Bush has being an idiot.
Bush is an idiot. He just has masterminds behind him. You might say that that's what a leader should be like, but he should be controlling his smart people. In this case, I believe that the smart people are controlling him.
Quote:
I really wish that Lieberman would have been nominated by you guys! I know he's not pretty, but I respect him.
That's because he's a neoconservative who never bothered to cross party lines back in the 70s or 80s. In other words, he's a Republican in sheep's clothing -- a socially and fiscally conservative hawk who's a Democrat.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234246 - 21/09/2004 14:54
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Only if all of these peices that he would have no control over fall into place. No-lose? Are you serious? Him being exposed in such a fraud would be about as bad as Watergate.
But if it's an obvious fraud, no one would have done any real investigation to find out who was behind it. It's just that CBS really dropped the ball and ran it anyway. It's like a sacrifice bunt that got dropped by the pitcher and thrown over the first baseman's head into the stands.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234248 - 21/09/2004 15:27
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: DLF]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Keep in mind that Lieberman is also interested in expanding corporate rights, wants to get rid of "bad" music and video games, etc. He stands for basically everything I'm against. At least he's more fiscally conservative than most of the Republican party these days. (For that matter, the Democrats are, too. While both want to spend lots of money, at least the Democrats are up front about having taxpayers pay for it. The Republicans just want to borrow all that money and leave it to be paid off later, just like some idiot who maxes out all his credit cards.) I fully believe that he would have switched party lines in the 80s had he not been a state AG and, as such, not involved in national politics.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234249 - 21/09/2004 15:44
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
Democrats have run the dirty campaign here ala 527's
The 527 activity is fair game on both sides, and neither candidate wants them to go away. Only the Bush camp took them to the extreme level of questioning military service. All the Democratic 527 ads (and I've watched dozens of different ones) prior to the Swift Boat Veterans fiasco were strictly about Bush's own record and how he's failed America. Obviously, they were negative ads, but nothing that sunk to the depths of questioning a soldier's service to his country. Even for several weeks after the Swift Boat ads ran, the Democratic 527 ads were still focusing on Bush's CURRENT failures instead of going below the belt and delving into the past. Finally, the Dems caught up and started really going after Bush. But it's factually incorrect to say that the campaigns have been run with the same level of "dirtyness." The Swift Boat attacks have lowered the common denominator even further, and I can only assume mud wrestling is next. (Yuck!)
Quote:
so it's hard to say he doesn't stand for anything.
Yes, he stands for the elimination of WMDs in Iraq. Oh wait, they're fresh out of those. Okay, he stands for liberating the Iraqi people. And he's doing such a good job that even Republican Dick Lugar, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, cites incompetence in how post-"liberation" Iraq is being handled.
So, if we've "liberated" Iraq, surely we must be winning the war on terror. Oh, wait, Bush said the war on terror wasn't winnable. Then, he said it is winnable. Seems to me if you're going to declare war on a TACTIC instead of a nation, a dictator, etc. then you better have your feces consolidated on whether the war is winnable or not. How about his pledge to not get involved in "nation building?" Sure looks, smells, and quacks like nation building to me.
Okay, let's try another. He absolutely stands for the eradication of Osama bin Laden. Er... crap, we can't get bin Laden. Okay, he stands for the removal of Saddam. Even Donald Rumsfeld is confused. And Bush's flip flop? In his own words:
[flip]
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority and we will not rest until we find him." -- George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001.
[/flip]
[flop]
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." -- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002.
[flop]
Alright, hitting Bush for his flip-flops on Iraq and the "war on terror" is way too easy, so let's look closer to home. He supported free trade, but to get my state's votes, flip-flopped to supporting steel tariffs. Then, amid criticism, he's flipped back. So, a "flip - flop - flip," if you will.
How about the recent expiration of the assault weapons ban? To get votes in 2000, he pledged to extend Clinton's 1994 ban, and, whoops, I guess he's too busy campaigning to bother following through on his promise.
The best way I've heard this double-standard explained is from this editorial. "By staying on the offensive, Bush has put the focus on Kerry flip-flops and deflected attention away from his own." I just hope the Dems can organize well enough to expose Bush for being fraudulent on the very same grounds that he's attacking Kerry. Once that's done, the playing field will be level, and we can focus on the "issues" so many people talk about, but don't seem to gather real votes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234250 - 22/09/2004 00:39
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
I'm voting for Kerry this year, and unlike others, I won't be holding my nose. While I don't think Kerry is the best man in America for the job (I was hoping Wesley Clark would win the nomination) I think he's a much smarter, decisive, and determined leader than he's been given credit for.
I'll be holding my nose not so much over Kerry, who I don't actively dislike (and his wife is *hot*), but over the Democrats A) willingness to nominate someone who voted for the Iraq War B) focus on "electability" while ignoring principals and C) their stupid inability to see the Swift Boat Veterans for Rove coming. Kerry was the "safe" choice.
I wish Wes Clark was the candidate ...for Vice President. The Kerry campaign may accidentally pull a miracle out of some hat -- a lot of bad juju can happen in October, the traditional month of surprises -- but I think Dean/Clark or even Edwards/Clark would have been in a better position right now. If Bush wins, history will show that began when the Clark campaign took aim at Dean in Iowa. IMHO.
Quote:
I just think he's run an atrocious campaign, not uncommon for someone's first time around, and especially against an incumbent in such a divided voting base. Kerry has had his work cut out for him, and has not risen to the challenge of defeating the Republican attack machine that's so good at dividing the voters and discrediting the opposition. Kerry and his people, I'm afraid, are no good at playing dirty politics.
Dirty politics aside, it would help if Kerry had a solid leg to stand on. On the #1 issue of the day, he has effectively neutered himself.
Quote:
CBS deserves to lose every viewer they have for running with this story. The Democrats, to their credit, didn't latch onto it too strongly, not nearly as strongly as the Bush people latched onto the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth." But they also have done a terrible job of responding to those attacks, and an even worse job of proving that the Bush campaign has nothing else to stand for except attacking Kerry's Vietnam service. (And if you think Rove isn't attached to those Swift Boat clowns, I've got a bridge to sell you.)
Isn't it tough? There are times I want the Dems to be more ruthless, but then they would be just like...them. Maybe they could just be a little smarter? A little more gumption? The last Democrat I really cared about was George McGovern. And what did we get?
Quote:
I think we'll get a much better picture for who's best to lead this country. I have no question that Kerry has the better ideas, and the wherewithal to execute them... Unfortunately, I don't have nearly as much faith in his ability to win an election in a voting base that's so brainwashed by the best dirty politicians in America.
On some level, some of us look forward to the debates, but I don't know that the tightly controlled format will be of benefit to Kerry. Bush has surprised before in debates for governor of Texas. He may not be very bright, but he can get his lines right in controlled circumstances.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234251 - 22/09/2004 00:55
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Could win? Only if all of these peices that he would have no control over fall into place.
You seem to be basing this assumption of complexity on the notion that somehow the gambit *must* be made to work. That is not so. If you accept the notion that what you try to throw at the wall may not stick, then the conspiratorial maneuver I have suggested (anonymously supplied memos) is completely fire-and-forget. All you need is a word processor or typewriter and some stamps. No phone calls. No meeting minutes. No risk. If it sticks, it sticks. If not, move on.
Quote:
No-lose? Are you serious? Him being exposed in such a fraud would be about as bad as Watergate.
The risk of exposure? Negligible. And if some David Brock type comes forward on November 3rd, who cares? Page three. People will blame Rove the way they blame him for McCain's black baby, but who will drag him into court? Our esteemed AG? You see, all of those special prosecutors that dogged the likes of Bill Clinton? Why, they have vanished! A Republican magic trick!
No lose, could win. Just remember to wear rubber cloves when closing the envelope.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234252 - 22/09/2004 01:00
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
It's like a sacrifice bunt that got dropped by the pitcher and thrown over the first baseman's head into the stands.
Bitt, what imagery. Kerry needs to hook up with you!
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234253 - 22/09/2004 03:47
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Also, I think it's the very things that Bush stands for that generate so much anger towards him, so it's hard to say he doesn't stand for anything.
True enough. Here's about all I can see Bush standing for: cronyism, warmongering, corporatism, ignorance, fear, distortion, self-righteousness, being above the law, etc.
Quote:
I can't stomach Kerry only because he sticks his finger in the wind and votes
Have you actually taken an honest look at his congressional record, or are you just parroting the standard party line? For a "flip-flopper", he's actually remarkably consistent. His flip-flops, from what I've read, are because he'll vote for something, but in the next round of hearings, various riders and other alterations to the bill get made, transforming what he originally voted for into something that he's no longer willing to support.
That's not to say he never makes the occasional gaffe -- far from it. But IMHO, he's no worse than Bush is in terms of flip-flops.
Quote:
or makes speeches based on what he think people will like on that given day.
Yeah, true enough, but then, it's a rare politician that *doesn't*.
Quote:
That's not leadership by any stretch. That's pandering.
To me, it seems like a good trait to have in a person that's elected by the people, for the people. (Though, I suppose the US election system doesn't really work like that.) The ability to say "I was mistaken before, but I'm going to try to set things right" takes a hell of a lot more in a leader than "stay the course" does. Bush doesn't seem like a good leader. Rather, he seems like the type of person that will throw a temper-tantrum if he doesn't get his way. That's not a leader, that's a bully. The worst this nation can do is re-elect a man who's so egotistical that he thinks he's never wrong, that honestly can't come up with a single mistake he's made, and learned something from. I prize honesty more than I prize bullheadedness.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234254 - 22/09/2004 05:31
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/06/1999
Posts: 7868
|
Quote:
But IMHO, he's no worse than Bush is in terms of flip-flops.
I fully agree with this, especially with statements like this:
"I don't think our troops should be used for nation building"
"If we go around the world saying we do it this way so should you, they will see us as an arrogant nation and resent us"
Who said the above? Governor George W. Bush.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234255 - 22/09/2004 12:25
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Damn it, where are all our conservative friends to help balance out the discussion? Brad can't carry the entire load for you right-wing guys! Don't you fellas get involved in these debates anymore?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234256 - 22/09/2004 14:13
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
To be honest, I only got into this conversation because it seemed innocent enough at first. I've been thinking of posting my own thread for several months about how sick I am of all the hatred in Off Topic. I cringe everytime I click on Off Topic and usually skip it all together. The hate is 10 times worse than the stuff that turned me away from the Republican party during Clinton's stay in office. I've even IM'd a few members of this BBS regarding the fact that I'd like to get involved in some intelligent debate but that I'm afraid of alienating myself to members who hate Bush. I actually thought for a few days that genexia wasn't replying to my inquirey for a memory upgrade on my player because of some of the conservative posts I've made in the past. I realize that I have no reason to think that, but I just hate the fact that it even went through my mind.
It'd be interesting to discuss views and theories on relavant topics instead of tossing around the word liar or repeating whatever conspiracies are heard on right-wing and left-wing media. I'm well aware this would be the exception. Don't get me wrong, for the most part, the Bush haters here do a decent job of keeping themselves from frothing at the mouth. But I doubt it will stop after November. Either Bush will win and the Democrats will continue to pound him while seeking an impeachment or Kerry will win and once the reality of that sinks in, people will have to remind themselves how much they hated Bush so they don't feel so bad.
I admit that it's no fun getting piled on here, but I really don't expect anyone to jump in. Besides, the technology community tends to be pretty "progressive" anyway.
That being said, it was Jim's comment that Heinz Kerry was hot that truely made me realize that some of you can not be reasoned with.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234257 - 22/09/2004 15:13
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
To be honest, I only got into this conversation because it seemed innocent enough at first.
I think this conversatoin was, is, and will continue to be very innocent. I wasn't saying that we need more conservatives to come to your rescue. I was saying it would be a more fun debate with more shades of conservative opinion mixed in.
Quote:
The hate is 10 times worse than the stuff that turned me away from the Republican party during Clinton's stay in office.
Well, I start with the theory that the amount of "hate" directed towards a politician should be proportional to the seriousness of the mistake they made. And if you ask me, sending our boys to die in a war that has nothing to do with "winning the war on terror" (not to mention spending an absurd amount of money on said war) is WAY more than 10 times worse than Clinton cheating on his wife. One mistake has killed more than a thousand American soldiers, squandered the US's good will in the international community, and thrown gasoline on the raging wildfire that is the middle east region. The other mistake, at the most, strained a single marriage with infidelity, something Americans everywhere are doing on their own. I'll take one strained marriage over a thousand deaths (and untold future consequences) any day.
Quote:
I admit that it's no fun getting piled on here
I've said this to you before, but it bears repeating. There is definitely hatred towards Bush here, but I don't think anyone here hates anyone with a conservative ideology. If anyone does truly hate all conservatives, then they're not reasonable people and would probaby have exposed themselves as idiots by now. Since that hasn't happened, I'm of the opinion that all of these debates have been strictly about the issues, and what's best for America (and, depending on the discussion, the world in general.) The hate that you're seeing is hate directed towards the current administration, and if you're taking that hate personally, I don't know how to change your mind. But from my perspective, I don't see anyone here who thinks any less of YOU because of YOUR beliefs.
As for Teresa, individual interpretations of "attractive" differ, but the woman is 65. I think any man in his right mind would hope and pray that his wife looks as good as she does at 65 (with the obvious exception of your carefully-chosen picture.)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234258 - 22/09/2004 17:21
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
To be honest, I only got into this conversation because it seemed innocent enough at first. I've been thinking of posting my own thread for several months about how sick I am of all the hatred in Off Topic. I cringe everytime I click on Off Topic and usually skip it all together. The hate is 10 times worse than the stuff that turned me away from the Republican party during Clinton's stay in office.
Well, no Clinton-lover, I, but, as Tony so eloquently pointed out, I think there are more substantive reasons to be *really* pissed at Bush (YMMV!). You have to understand, I live in one of those Blue states -- Kerry bumperstickers everywhere -- where my vote is unlikely to make a difference and where anti-Bush rants are likely to result in boring, nodding, sad agreement. Here in Off-Topic, you can have heated (warm?) discussions with people from battleground states (Michigan?) and *even* Red states (Texas!) Hate? Well, I am loathe to disguise my loathing for the current occupant of the White House and his posse. I mean, what would be the point of sugar-coating the degree of disgust I truly feel? Folks can always go "Hogan. Blech!" and skip it. But if you *do* read it, I wouldn't want you to come away with any illusions about how I really feel.
Quote:
It'd be interesting to discuss views and theories on relavant topics instead of tossing around the word liar or repeating whatever conspiracies are heard on right-wing and left-wing media.
Well, shucks, I came up with that Burkett conspiracy all on my own! What's a fellow gotta do to get some credit as a conspiracy theorist around here????
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, for the most part, the Bush haters here do a decent job of keeping themselves from frothing at the mouth. But I doubt it will stop after November. Either Bush will win and the Democrats will continue to pound him while seeking an impeachment or Kerry will win and once the reality of that sinks in, people will have to remind themselves how much they hated Bush so they don't feel so bad.
Hmmm, I'm feeling like it is most important to froth at the mouth before November 2nd. A Kerry win? I don't expect things to be much better, but I could take some consolation from knowing that the worst crowd had been ousted as they deserve. A Bush win? Depression. The usefulness of further frothing? Not much. Impeachment? Not bloody likely. Republican Congress, Supreme Court, AG and no Special Prosecutor? Shrub would have to shoot his whole cabinet while driving drunk.
Quote:
I admit that it's no fun getting piled on here, but I really don't expect anyone to jump in. Besides, the technology community tends to be pretty "progressive" anyway.
I do join Tony in wondering where minority BBS conservatives have gone, but I acknowledge that it is a tough row to hoe. If somebody at this point wants to start a post about either A) Why the War in Iraq is a Good Idea or B) What Bush Really Stands For (beyond bein' agin' gay marriage!) I am interested to read it.
I am afraid, though, that canuckinLA's concise summary fairly drips with truth:
Quote:
Here's about all I can see Bush standing for: cronyism, warmongering, corporatism, ignorance, fear, distortion, self-righteousness, being above the law, etc.
I had to repeat it. Well put.
Lastly, on the subject of Teresa Heinz Kerry....I think your wink and picture selection acknowledged that I was being a *little* tongue-in-cheek, but not too. The closer I creep to 65, the better she looks! Maybe it is the plastic surgery or the billions!
Seriously, what I meant by "hot" was (aside from sex appeal) was....I only listened to small bits of the Democratic convention on radio and managed by accident to see part of her speech on TV. I missed Barack Obama (supposed to be good) and heard part of Sharpton's replayed on radio (quite stirring if you can put Tawana Brawley out of your mind!), but Teresa managed, in my mind, to come across as the person with the least cliche and the most zing. She was a pleasure to watch. I know she's worth billiions and she isn't "just like us". The Heinz empire may have oppressed farm workers for all I know, but I never heard of a tanker full of ketchup despoiling the coast of Alaska.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234259 - 22/09/2004 23:10
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
You guys know that this isn't real right? I like balistic airports though.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234260 - 23/09/2004 00:19
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
"He has attempted to purchase seven million hydrogen powered doctors and the western wall of the Pentagon."
Hysterical
But why, oh why, can't he pronounce "noo clee ar" correctly?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234261 - 23/09/2004 09:28
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
It's "nuc you ler". Duh.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234263 - 23/09/2004 12:58
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
I'm just tired of reading the Anti-Bush sentiment that is constantly put forth as an obvious truth, full well knowing that there are those here who disagree with the premise.
I've seen noobdy putting their opinions out as an "obvious truth." In a debate like this, everything we say is, by definition, our own opinion. In many of these discussions, I've had my own understanding of the truth changed based on information and opinions others have put forth. Sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes in more fundamental ways. If I thought I already knew the real truth about everything, I wouldn't bother getting involved in any type of political discourse at all.
Of course, nobody goes into a debate thinking they're wrong. And at times, we all find actual facts, evidence, which can support our position. But unless those things are indeed fact, I don't think they're portrayed as such.
Quote:
It just seems having an objective debate is not really feasible and attempting one is not very constructive.
I'm really sorry you guys feel that way.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#234264 - 23/09/2004 13:46
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
member
Registered: 09/03/2002
Posts: 178
Loc: Louisiana, USA
|
I can say one thing. If Bush does win, I don't think I'm going to leave my apartment for a few days. There are going to be a few million people where I live that are going to be very unhappy. And they all know I'm American.
_________________________
_______________________________________
former owner...now I'm just another schmuck
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234265 - 24/09/2004 00:10
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
I'm afraid of alienating myself to members who hate BushBrad, that just isn't going to happen here. I don't know whether you realize it, but you are quite highly thought of on this bbs. While I can't speak for everyone, I can say that while I disagree strongly with your [political] opinions, I enjoy the hell out of reading them, thinking about them, and occasionally responding to them. What a dull place this bbs would be if everybody agreed with everybody else about everything! Myself, I (and I suspect the great majority of bbs members) don't feel that you are in any way an unworthy or inferior person just because your opinion differs from mine. Even if your opinion is ridiculous, uninformed, and likely to lead to the end of civilization as we know it.   Please keep up the good work, and don't let all us commie-pinko-left-wing-liberals put you down without a fight! tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234266 - 24/09/2004 00:17
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Thanks man, that really means a lot. And I don't think you're pinko at all. Let me regroup and respond in a bit... I'm not online during the day anymore, so that makes it hard.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234267 - 24/09/2004 00:58
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I've seen noobdy putting their opinions out as an "obvious truth." In a debate like this, everything we say is, by definition, our own opinion. In many of these discussions, I've had my own understanding of the truth changed based on information and opinions others have put forth. Sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes in more fundamental ways. If I thought I already knew the real truth about everything, I wouldn't bother getting involved in any type of political discourse at all.
On re-reading my post I didn't quite come across the way I meant to. I actually had a much longer post that I edited down to try and avoid getting into any actual disagreement over my examples.
In the end, I don't think my tentative and weak support for Bush is really going to counter the outright hatred I see for Bush here. I truly don't believe he is deserving of the hatred you guys heap upon him- I see him as a man who's made some right choices and some wrong ones and at his level there are drastic consequences for both.
But since you seem to want my thoughts (and these are mostly just limited to Iraq):
I do believe we should have gone into Iraq.
I don't think Bush handled the situation well with regards to the rest of the world- I feel his administration was disrespectful.
I think Bush should have been more responsible with the information he used to support the war.
I think Bush should have been clearer with regards to his reasons for the war.
I don't think he should have used 9/11 as a justification for the war.
I do think that war has consequences and that as a strong nation it is our responsibility to pay those if it will ultimately lead to the freedom of others.
Having said all of this (more negatives than positives), in general I agree with Bush's motives and ideology, I just don't agree with many of the ways that he's approached those things. It's so difficult to tell the truth through all the spin, but I truly believe Bush is a good man who has made some mistakes. And those mistakes were not "getting people killed" as is so often asserted, those deaths were to free an oppressed people and prevent those who would destroy us from gaining the ability to do so. His mistakes, however, have had the drastic effect of making our country look bad and for causing our own citizens to distrust him.
And if we decide to discuss this further just know that I'm working at a site this week where I cannot post to the BBS.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234268 - 24/09/2004 01:38
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Do you really think that those people are better off now or will be so anytime in the next, say, dozen years? Their circumstances have certainly changed, but I can't say that one is really much better than the other.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234269 - 24/09/2004 03:11
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
I think Bush should have been clearer with regards to his reasons for the war.
[...]
in general I agree with Bush's motives and ideology
This is the only part of your post that doesn't make sense to me: how can anyone agree with Bush's motives and ideology, when Bush hasn't made it clear what those motives and ideology are?
Quote:
I truly believe Bush is a good man who has made some mistakes
Mistakes, I can put up with. I honestly don't think Bush is evil, either. I think he's naive, petulant, has a competitive streak a mile long, and as a result, is easily manipulated by his staff as a result. I think he's in waaaay over his head.
He has a history of business failures, all of which he was bailed out of, and even in his involvement with his ballclub, he was kept at arms reach by his partners. His personal life was a mess, which he was bailed out of. And now, even though you think the war is justified, you think he's made more mistakes than he has done right. To me, that all just stacks up to something far more serious than "some mistakes".
I'm sure he's a very personable fellow, and that I'd like him if we had met before he got into politics. Regardless of good, or not good, however, when one's pattern of choices tends to have more negatives, than positives, especially at the level where the outcome of those choices can have disastrous, and far reaching consequences, I think it's important to ask: is this the right person to lead the country?
That, alone, would keep me from voting for the guy, and I haven't even begun to touch on the stuff that *really* gets under my skin about the administration.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234270 - 24/09/2004 09:46
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Do you really think that those people are better off now or will be so anytime in the next, say, dozen years? Their circumstances have certainly changed, but I can't say that one is really much better than the other.
I do, but I'm not over there so who am I to say? Still, I think I'd rather be in a war torn country than living under an opressive regime. And though I doubt Iraq will experience the kind of freedom we have here in any kind of near future, I think the violence will eventually lessen and people will no longer live in fear of genocide and the other evils Sadam did to them.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234271 - 24/09/2004 10:10
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
This is the only part of your post that doesn't make sense to me: how can anyone agree with Bush's motives and ideology, when Bush hasn't made it clear what those motives and ideology are?
I think it's pretty clear that Bush comes from a position of conservative faith. I see in many cases how his faith drives his decisions, so I can say with some amount of confidence that our sense of morality comes from the same source. Politically I find myself somewhat to the left of Bush and most Republicans (I don't support the gay marriage ammendment, I don't think their should be public prayer in school, etc.), but because we share similar belief systems Bush's views are closer to mine than Kerry or just about any other Democrat. Not that a person with similar faith can't be a Democrat, but usually they choose not to be because many of the party's ideals are just not consistend with our belief system. I've said before that I don't feel well represented by these candidates, and that's why I'm so frustrated by the system at the moment. But as far as Bush the man goes (not Bush the politican), I'm pretty sure he and I would find very similar ideals as to where we want this country to go. I just have some different ideas when it comes to how those ideas can affect policy.
As to the rest of your post, all I can say is that you have good points but our options are really limited here. My choices are for either Bush, with whom I agree standpoint of goals and ideals but who has not impressed me with his actions, or Kerry who has largely remained undefined as far as goals go. And when he does define his beliefs and what drives him they always contrary to mine.
I should note that one allegation that is made over and over again that really bugs me is how Republicans say they want to spend less but then end up spending more. This bugs me because it's true and that is truly frustrating. I do think we ought to spend less in taxes and on government programs like the Republicans say, but they don't seem to know how to follow through on that. At least Democratic leaders have some integrity on this point by not claming the can do more with less.
So this is all what I meant by being a weak supporter of Bush. He's the better choice for me, but he certainly isn't the perfect person to represent me in office. Of course, there's no way that person could ever be elected so someone like Bush is probably the best shot I get. 
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234272 - 24/09/2004 19:12
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I think it's pretty clear that Bush comes from a position of conservative faith.
I think that we're all aware by now that I'm pretty close to being anti-religious, so I think you should take this as the viewpoint of an outsider looking in:
I am positive that Bush's faith is a fraud. I don't think that he's any more Christian than Anton Lavey. I truly believe that he is one hundred percent pandering to the conservative Christian masses. That is, he talks the talk, but does not walk the walk.
Consider this for a minute. Then consider if you'd still vote for him if he did not claim to be Christian, or make any pretense about it, but made the same presidential decisions. It sounds to me as if you're choosing him simply because he claims to have the same religion you do. Now, I don't believe that that's enough of a reason to begin with. After all, I'm sure David Duke would claim the same thing. But, regardless of whether or not I feel that a candidate's religion is a good selection criterion, it definitely becomes bad when it's a lie intended solely to get you to choose him.
I'd appreciate it if you'd think about this, because I'm sure many of us believe that Bush's faith really is fraudulent. I'd consider my wife to be quite a religious person (albeit not in the same vein as yours) and she's even more convinced than I am that Bush is a poseur.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234273 - 24/09/2004 20:19
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
I find that a very interesting and thought-provoking opinion, Bitt.
I always just assumed that Bush was a typical Fundie. But I honestly never gave it much thought beyond that. I'm curious for more details as to what you've seen about him that makes you carry that opinion.
I mean, there's one school of thought which says all politicians are corrupt (or at least the successful ones must be in order to be successful), and that kind of corruption is not truly Christian. There's also the school of thought that says people can do bad things, or be deluded or power-mad, all in the name of God, because they either don't understand the scripture or they twist its meaning to serve their ends. I would buy all of that in relation to Bush.
But I think you're saying something beyond that. I think you're trying to say that Bush genuinely doesn't believe in God or the Bible, not one bit, and that everything related he says is specific, premeditated deception. I think that's a very extraordinary claim, so I'd be very interested in any details you could provide regarding that.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234274 - 24/09/2004 21:47
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Ummm. The only thing I can say to you is to live in the South for your whole life. You'll get to see the difference.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234275 - 24/09/2004 22:08
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Actually, let me expand on that a little.
There are, I'm sure, many people everywhere, including the South, that are genuine Christian people who do nice things for others because they feel that it's the right thing to do. To me, this is a true Christian attitude, and the act of proselytizing is secondary at best.
But there are way too many people, and they are the really vocal ones, for whom Christianity is a way to feel superior. They're "better" Christians than you are. Why aren't you going to church? Can't you see that you're living in sin? Christian-owned plumbing. Truth-Fish-eats-Darwin-Fish stickers. These people, the ones that make sure you know that they're Christian, their faith is, at best, secondary to feeling superior. While I'm sure that they're in the minority, it's a very common attitude and it sure doesn't feel like a minority. (BTW, no one I can think of on this board seems to have this attitude.)
I was not always the religious outsider I portray myself as now. I went to church virtually every week for the first sixteen or so years of my life. Not really feeling like there was anything there for me was the reason I left, but this overly prevalent attitude is the reason I grew to detest organized religion.
Anyway, George W. Bush displays this attitude in spades. Except that he seldom seems to actually speak of Christianity, and when he does, it seems very superficial.
I don't really have any solid evidence. It's just a very strong intuitive feeling based on prior experience.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234276 - 24/09/2004 22:17
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
These people, the ones that make sure you know that they're Christian, their faith is, at best, secondary to feeling superior.
That comment, and other about Americans who support Bush as being "brainwashed" implying that they are of weak mind is why most conservatives view many liberals as elitists. We feel that liberals view the majority of Americans or Christians as being inferior to them. Implying that someone with a sticker on their car claiming their faith is "at best, secondary to feeling superior" is arrogant and offensive. That's the definition of prejudice. Proud does not equal arrogant. Otherwise, everyone with any sticker, be it a political sticker or a band sticker would be the same. You've seem to have extended this view toward Bush, even, as you admit, you have no evidence other than your distain for religion.
Edited by SE_Sport_Driver (24/09/2004 22:18)
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234277 - 24/09/2004 22:33
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
No. You've missed my point. There are also, I'm sure, many people who have jesus fish on their cars who are reasonable people, too. Jesus fish are a symptom. But just because you have a cough doesn't mean you have tuberculosis. Also, I disdain organized religion, but I don't necessarily detest religious people, even if they choose to be so in an organized fashion.
Regardless, that's all beside the point, as my claim is that George W. Bush is not religious. I certainly don't believe that about Jon or Jeff or Michael. I do believe that they may be being duped. That doesn't necessarily mean that they would vote otherwise, but it certainly seems to cement it.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234278 - 25/09/2004 01:08
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Anton LaVey
A bit of clarification in case (like myself) people are unfamiliar with the reference...
Anton Szandor LaVey (1930-1997), along with Charles Manson, Timothy Leary, and other messianic pop gurus, was a notorious figure of the 1960s' subculture of social experiment. As the flamboyant High Priest of the Church of Satan and the author of the Satanic Bible, he served as an ideal bogeyman for the sensation-seeking American media of that tumultuous period.
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234279 - 25/09/2004 01:28
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
That comment, and other about Americans who support Bush as being "brainwashed" implying that they are of weak mind is why most conservatives view many liberals as elitists. We feel that liberals view the majority of Americans or Christians as being inferior to them.
It's possible to be Christian and liberal. The "me first" attitude that some (not even many) conservatives, some of them self-professed Christians, have, isn't nearly Christian. But, realistically, everyone's different, and there are certainly people who I know will vote for Bush who I respect, and I respect their choice to do so. I wish they wouldn't, but there are very, very few people who I look down on it for it, and those people only because their statements are out of line with their actions.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234280 - 25/09/2004 01:34
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
These people, the ones that make sure you know that they're Christian, their faith is, at best, secondary to feeling superior. While I'm sure that they're in the minority, it's a very common attitude and it sure doesn't feel like a minority. (BTW, no one I can think of on this board seems to have this attitude.)
Perhaps this is something like the factions of Christianity in Northern Ireland which act nothing like believers; It's more important to kill people on in the other sect because that sect and not those particular people are perceived as having repressed the others.
But this isn't just true of Christians. Every group has self-professed members who do it to belong, and not because they actually believe in the views espoused by the group generally. The group may be in many cases totally on the level, and is having its reputation besmirched by people who associate themselves with the group despite not really belonging.
In George W's case, he certainly takes some un-Christian positions but it's not inconceivable to me that he does actually believe he's doing the right thing (even if I disagree).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234281 - 25/09/2004 02:12
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
It is certainly within your rights to disagree with me, but, IMO, even that is beside the point. My real point is that even if you assume for a second that he's not a Christian -- ignore his professions -- and look at his record, it doesn't seem to be very Christian, and if your basis for choosing a candidate is that he be Christian, I think that actions should speak louder than words. And his actions seem to indicate that if he is a Christian, he's one that seems to be stuck in the ages of Urban II and Innocent III.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234282 - 25/09/2004 03:02
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
What are the things you see Bush as having done that are not Christian?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234283 - 25/09/2004 03:19
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I mean, there's one school of thought which says all politicians are corrupt (or at least the successful ones must be in order to be successful), and that kind of corruption is not truly Christian.
My perception of Bush is that he is a politican first and a Christian second. I say this because of a time he came to the church I was attending to give his testimony and ended up giving a political speech. I was thoroughly disgusted and it really opened my eyes. Not that it made me think his faith wasn't genuine, but that politics were the dominant force in his life. I don't see being political as being immoral, but as a Christian I try to make every action first and formost about Jesus Christ; all other things are secondary. It was dissapointing to find this not to be true (or at least that's the way it came accross), and it caused me to think a lot about God and politics. The conclusion I came to was that Bush is the kind of person who gets elected. The man who I respect most in the world (my old pastor) would never get elected, so Bush is the best I can hope for. I doubt Kerry or any other politican, conservative or liberal, would have gotten up in that church and talked about their faith in God. It's just not what politicans do.
Quote:
There's also the school of thought that says people can do bad things, or be deluded or power-mad, all in the name of God, because they either don't understand the scripture or they twist its meaning to serve their ends.
The sense I got from Bush (and I base a lot of what I think about the man from that single experience, probably not wise) was not that he was power hungry. He struck me as trying to do the right things and that these were motivated by his faith. However, it felt like though his motives were from faith, the actions were a bit "watered down" to be palitable to non-Christians. I suppose it has to be that way or he'd never get elected (this was before he was president), but that just illustrates that someone has to be a politican first and whatever else second. But regardless of however these things played out, he did seem genuine that the source of his actions was faith, not a desire for power or control. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't true- it's just not what I perceived.
Quote:
I think that's a very extraordinary claim, so I'd be very interested in any details you could provide regarding that.
I'd be interested in your reasoning as well, Bitt. That is the kind of perspective that if accompined with reasonable evidence could nail Bush to the wall.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234284 - 25/09/2004 03:34
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
It sounds to me as if you're choosing him simply because he claims to have the same religion you do.
Not quite, but close. I believe that politics are driven by our leaders belief systems. Therefore, the most important thing to me in politics is to support someone who has a belief system similar to my own. I'd probably be willing to vote for a conservative Jewish person just as easily as a conservative Christian since both are going to have similar goals in leading our country. In fact, there are planks of the republic party that I simply don't agree with, but there are far more issues in the democratic party so I kind of get railroaded into voting republican. In the end, however, someone who comes from a conservative Christian perspective is more likely than anyone else to govern the country the way I'd want.
Is Clinton a Christian? I don't know, but from what I understand about him he at least makes the claim. I can't judge whether he is or not, but it is clear to me that he comes from a different moral belief system than I do. So in that case there would be an example in which I wouldn't vote for some based on faith alone.
From what I've heard about Bush (from his own mouth and from reading his stances on things) he does come from a similar persepctive to mine. As I've said, often I agree with his moral beliefs but not the way the are put into policy, but overall I still believe I have a better chance with him than with Kerry.
I'm sure there are tons of people in this country who I'd vote for over Bush, but unfortunately they aren't on the ballot.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234285 - 25/09/2004 14:43
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
What are the things you see Bush as having done that are not Christian?
If they aren't obvious to you by now, then there's no point in listing them, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I still don't see how you can possibly support the man.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234286 - 25/09/2004 15:27
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
I still don't see how you can possibly support the man.
Actually, I think Jeff did a very good job of explaining exactly why he supports Bush. I certainly don't agree with his logic, but I understand it.
I happen to agree with you that his faith is just an accessory he can wear when he wants to appeal to Christian voters, but I can understand why Jeff wouldn't see it that way.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234287 - 25/09/2004 16:24
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I'm sure that Hitler thought that he was a good Christian. Would Jeff vote for him? No, of course not; his actions would easily trump his words. I think the same thing should apply to Bush (not that I'm comparing Bush to Hitler -- it's just an extreme example). Attacking another country without reason is simply not a Christian ideal. Nor is trying to deny others their rights. Nor is lying in order to get your way.
I believe that Jeff is intending to vote for Bush because Bush seems to come from the same background. Whether or not he does is irrelevant. But his actions don't seem to support the background that Jeff wants, and I beleve he's stated as much several times. And he's not considering Kerry (or anyone else, if there will be anyone else) because he doesn't explicitly claim to come from the same background. To me, that's like saying that I'm not going to vote for Kerry because he grew up in the North while ignoring the fact that Bush also grew up in the North because he presents himself as being from Texas.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234288 - 25/09/2004 18:22
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Actually, I believe it's more of "Bush at least claims to support the same ideals I do...Kerry makes no pretense to." In that case who do you pick?
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234289 - 26/09/2004 14:05
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
The one whose actions match what you believe in.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234290 - 26/09/2004 14:13
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
The one whose actions match what you believe in.
Speaking of which... Link.
I post the link only as a means of promoting discussion about the aforementioned actions. A lot of the information presented there is very "Fahrenheit 9/11" except the propaganda side of it is more extreme. It contains some straw-man arguments and some attempts at making connections where none exist.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234291 - 28/09/2004 03:36
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Not that it made me think his faith wasn't genuine, but that politics were the dominant force in his life
Well, ummm... gosh, I'd hope so.
After all, the man is a politician. Not just any politician, but the top-dog politician in the whole country. He'd better be interested in politics, that's what we pay him for!
I would not be comfortable with the idea of a man running things who was more interested in his religion than in the welfare of the country.
Takes me back to 1960 when John F. Kennedy, a [gasp!] Catholic was running for president, and some deluded people were (really, truly!) saying, "Oh, I'm not gonna vote for him -- he'll be taking his orders directly from the Pope."
Well, we all know how ridiculous that was... but in that same vein, I am worry about a commander in chief who does something because he knows that it is what God wants him to do.
Hearken back to the Crusades for an example of where that mindset can lead one...
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234293 - 29/09/2004 04:16
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
As Brad bemoans, work causes me to fall way behind (on a thread that I started!). So I respond in summary fashoin here..... Brad: Quote:
Let me regroup and respond in a bit... I'm not online during the day anymore, so that makes it hard.
Tell me about it. I saw all of this posting to the BBS on Friday and then I had to....work....and socialize!
JeffS:
Quote:
I do believe we should have gone into Iraq.
Why? And do you acknowledge any downside?
canuckinLA:
Quote:
I honestly don't think Bush is evil, either. I think he's naive, petulant, has a competitive streak a mile long, and as a result, is easily manipulated by his staff as a result. I think he's in waaaay over his head.
If the gent we regarded as the local party animal/buffoon got totallysh*tfaced, drove their SUV onto the Interstate the wrong way and killed my wife/brother/sister/son/daughter, I might not think of them as the embodiment of evil, but, boy, would I hate them. What to make of the party boy who sends one thousand young people (and some thousands of Iraquis) to their deaths with an AWOL crocodile's tears and a summary "Gee, it's tough."? I might not think they are evil as in Hitler evil, but hate? Easy.
Quote:
I'm sure he's a very personable fellow, and that I'd like him if we had met before he got into politics.
Many people say this, but I can't see it. What charming sobriquet would Shrub invent for you? "Hey, puck-buddy!" Me? "Hey, Salmon Boy!" Maybe recent events have just poisoned my mind, but I think I would find his frat boy's company nauseating. Better to spend a weekend locked in a sweat lodge with Rob Voisey!!!
wfaulk:
Quote:
I am positive that Bush's faith is a fraud.
I would certainly be willing to entertain this notion..... I have been interested, though, to listen to Texan observers like Wayne Slater (no Bush fan, author of "Bush's Brain" -- about Rove/Bush) note how they *do* think that Bush's policies are truly faith-driven on some (sincere?) level. Not that this makes me feel much better!! If "dry-drunk" Bush finds religion and takes to (sincerely) reading the Bible every AM so that he can feel more self-satisfied with the righteousness of his wacky actions and that, somehow or other, Divine Guidance is at his elbow keeping him on the Right Course, should I feel better because he is sincere? Not much.
Amazing, though, how convenient it has been historically for various religious folk to rape, pillage, take power, profiteer, enjoy their dividend coupons, et cetera, when they are assured that it is all in the name of The Big Guy. Sincerity, schmincerity. Let us judge deeds.
wfaulk:
Quote:
Christian-owned plumbing.
SE_Sport_Driver:
Quote:
That comment, and other about Americans who support Bush as being "brainwashed" implying that they are of weak mind is why most conservatives view many liberals as elitists.
I included one snippet from Bitt because it "said it all" to me: Christian-owned plumbing. I have encountered several merchants (somebody who I was going to have do some canvas for my boat...a moving company...a painting outfit) who gave me an estimate for work and their business card. I looked at the business card and there was that Christian fish (somewhat disguised in one case). I did not do business with them and I let them know why. What does the fish say? It says "You can trust me, I'm a Christian!" I can not help but infer what else it says -- it says "you just can't trust those other folks (like Jim the atheist!) as much". That pisses me off. And yes, when I see those cheap plastic fish on the backs of cars, I can't help but think the fish is singing "I'm going to Heaven! I'm going to Heaven!" And completely remarkable, the counterstrike Jesus fish eating the Darwin fish. What's up with that? Not very Christian if you ask me!
OK, so I'm an elitist.
Quote:
It's possible to be Christian and liberal.
Thank you. And I want to say that -- while I don't/didn't share their belief in supernatural deities -- there have been and are very religious people out there who I respect based on their actions and principals. Think Ita Ford, Maura Clark, Dorothy Kazel, Jean Donovan. I don't imagine that *any* of them would have put a plastic fish on their Jeep. I could be wrong.
tanstaafl:
Quote:
Hearken back to the Crusades for an example of where that mindset can lead one...
Hearken back? This *is* the Crusades!
webroach:
Quote:
"I believe God want's me to be president..."
Again, how handy.
As Arianna Huffington said: A classic "dry drunk".
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234294 - 29/09/2004 04:34
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234295 - 29/09/2004 04:42
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is the only part of your post that doesn't make sense to me: how can anyone agree with Bush's motives and ideology, when Bush hasn't made it clear what those motives and ideology are?
I think it's pretty clear that Bush comes from a position of conservative faith. I see in many cases how his faith drives his decisions, so I can say with some amount of confidence that our sense of morality comes from the same source.
I was surprised to read Bitt's answer to this, because it's pretty much what I think of Bush. I have a fairly conservative upbringing -- I was raised Christian, in a family where abstinence was the rule of the day when it came to sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll. Though I have a liberal political viewpoint, my personal choices are still extremely conservative. Much of my morality is grounded on teachings from the Bible, though I have found alternate justifications for that morality that don't require the Biblical teachings. That's part of what suggests, to me, that they are a reasonably valid set of morals. That said, like Bitt, I think that Bush isn't being completely forthright about his religion, though, unlike Bitt, I'm a bit more conflicted. In some ways, I think he's faking it -- his actions don't say "I believe in Christ's teachings" to me. In other ways, I agree with Tony (I think it was who mentioned it), in that he may be doing what he thinks is the most Christian, but then with quotes like "God wants me to be president", I think he's somewhat delusional. So I'm stuck between "faker" and "nutcase" when it comes to Bush's religion.
Quote:
Politically I find myself somewhat to the left of Bush and most Republicans (I don't support the gay marriage ammendment, I don't think their should be public prayer in school, etc.), but because we share similar belief systems Bush's views are closer to mine than Kerry or just about any other Democrat.
It sounds like we probably share a great deal in common, barring the fact that you think Bush shares a similar belief system with you.
I apologize for not being able to find the original website for this, but I think this is very truthful, even though it's a parody.
Quote:
Not that a person with similar faith can't be a Democrat, but usually they choose not to be because many of the party's ideals are just not consistent with our belief system.
I dunno. I feel the exact opposite -- that Christian ideals are *more* consistent with the Dem platform, than the Republican platform. Christ was about charity, forgiveness, good stewardship, uplifting the poor and middle class, etc, and I just don't see that reflected in the Republican platform to the same extent.
Quote:
I've said before that I don't feel well represented by these candidates, and that's why I'm so frustrated by the system at the moment.
Heh. I think this statement would resonate with the majority of the country. I don't think Kerry is really representative of my ideals, either.
Quote:
I should note that one allegation that is made over and over again that really bugs me is how Republicans say they want to spend less but then end up spending more. This bugs me because it's true and that is truly frustrating. I do think we ought to spend less in taxes and on government programs like the Republicans say, but they don't seem to know how to follow through on that. At least Democratic leaders have some integrity on this point by not claming the can do more with less.
Agreed. Though I have no degree in economics, I think fiscal conservativeness is the only way one can create a healthy economy. You can't spend your way out of debt -- that's been proven time and time again on a personal level, and I don't follow the logic that suggests otherwise. Where I don't agree with the Republicans on this point is that they seem to think that privatization is the key to spending less. I think when one goes down that road, the end result is a pure focus on the profit side, and none on the service, so if the service isn't profitable (such as, say, a hospital), then it goes away, leaving nothing. What's really needed is more efficiency, and less pork (and pretty much every polititian is complicit in this).
Quote:
So this is all what I meant by being a weak supporter of Bush.
I can agree with the logic, though I don't agree with your initial premises.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234296 - 29/09/2004 10:41
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I do believe we should have gone into Iraq.
Why? And do you acknowledge any downside?
The short version: because Saddam was a terrible and dangerous dictator who was responsible for horrific human rights violations and would at some point be a huge threat to us if remained uncheck. There's a lot to be said about this and I think we've had the discussion before, but in the end I do think it was the right thing to do. I do see that we've paid (and are continuing to pay) a massive price for this war and history may indeed prove that it was the wrong move.Quote:
What does the fish say? It says "You can trust me, I'm a Christian!"
Actually I believe the intention is to say, “I'm showing the world that I have faith in Christ”. While there are some fields where people market their faith as a reason to choose their services (psychologists for example), this is usually because it’s a field in which the philosophical framework is important to the job. An example is that my wife is undergoing a fairly traumatic surgery and had to have a psych evaluation. The psychologist she met with told her she should probably spend a few more sessions with a psychologist to help deal with the trauma, however she should probably go to a Christian counselor because her faith is so important to her. So in that case you have a business that caters specifically to Christians. However, I wouldn't choose a plumber based on the fact he has a fish on his card, though I appreciate the statement of faith. But I've never gotten the sense that I was supposed to use someone's services because of a religious symbol on his or her card.
As far as the "God wants me to be president," quote, I wouldn't make too much of this. It's a statement very consistent with his faith. Pretty much everything I do I pray about and seek the Lord's guidance on. If I take a new job or buy a new car, I don't do it unless I feel like it's something God wants me to do. I realize that doesn't translate well into secular culture very well, but ever decision I make has consequences, spiritual as well as physical even for little things as to how much to spend at the grocery store this month ("is this going to bring undue burden on our finances and cause difficulties in my marriage- a very spiritual union?"). For Bush to say he believes God wants him to be president is almost a non-statement. If he is a believer and is running for president it goes without saying that he believes it's what God wants. When I've read this statement it's been in the context of talking to other believers to assure them of his motives: "I want you to know that I've sought the Lord about this and am not just pursuing my own goals" not proclaiming that a vote against him is a vote against God.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234297 - 29/09/2004 11:19
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Quote:
Christ was about charity, forgiveness, good stewardship, uplifting the poor and middle class, etc,
Sounds like you need a few re-reads of your Bible. While all of those things are represented, that's clearly not what Christ was about. Furthermore, Christ advocated charity, forgiveness, etc on a personal level as a result of a changed heart (being spirtually born again). Any of those things are more meaningless to him than a pile of filthy rags apart from that.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234298 - 29/09/2004 11:25
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
How do you type a moaning sound where it doesn't read like you're in some sex chat room? Will a "Sigh..." work? Quote:
I included one snippet from Bitt because it "said it all" to me: Christian-owned plumbing. I have encountered several merchants (somebody who I was going to have do some canvas for my boat...a moving company...a painting outfit) who gave me an estimate for work and their business card. I looked at the business card and there was that Christian fish (somewhat disguised in one case). I did not do business with them and I let them know why. What does the fish say? It says "You can trust me, I'm a Christian!" I can not help but infer what else it says -- it says "you just can't trust those other folks (like Jim the atheist!) as much". That pisses me off. And yes, when I see those cheap plastic fish on the backs of cars, I can't help but think the fish is singing "I'm going to Heaven! I'm going to Heaven!" And completely remarkable, the counterstrike Jesus fish eating the Darwin fish. What's up with that? Not very Christian if you ask me!
OK, so I'm an elitist.
Substitute the Christian symbols for anything else and I hope you'll see how prejudice you are being. At least you admit that you are an elitist, but it seems that being bigoted doesn't bother you. You are inferring that someone who is proud of their faith is somehow telling you that you're going to hell? Or that any other contractor is untrustworthy? Get over it, the world doesn't revolve around you and they are not putting that on their business cards or the side of their work vehicle for "you". They are doing it for themselves because they are proud. You act as if they should hold their head in shame.
Do you see how bad this is? Do you? I think that you're telling us more about yourself than you are about these Christians who offend you so much. I can see if you're talking about one of those guys that shows up at rock concerts and actually DOES tell everyone that they are going the hell, but that's not what you're talking about. (And those people do not, as far as I know, represent any facet of the Christian faith.) It's as if everytime you see a Christian proclaiming their faith, you think that these people are telling you that you're a bad person or something. I find it so offensive that you'll dismiss someone just because they are Christian. And that's exactly what you're doing if a fish on a business card makes your skin crawl so much. Oh wait, it's okay if their Christian, as long as they don't publically admit it. Sounds like Saudi Arabia to me.
Quote:
It says "You can trust me, I'm a Christian!"
No, it's saying "I'm proud of my faith." That's it.
My family's company has an American flag and an Italian flag in their logo. When you see that, do you think that we are saying "Don't let those Mexicans do the masonry work for you because we're Italian and we do it better"? We do it because my father-in-law is proud of this Italian heritage. There is also a sense of community involved, so many other Italians might seek us out. But we also do a lot of work for Iraqis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Poles, or mainstream Americans who respect the fact that he is proud of his heritage just like they are of theirs.
Is a person with a rainbow sticker on their car telling the world that they are inferrior if they are not gay? Should every straight person refuse to do work with someone who goes so low as to admit that they are gay? Of course not. So why is it okay to take that same attitude towards Christians.
It's amazing how politically correct it is now to attack Christians.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234299 - 29/09/2004 12:06
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
t's amazing how politically correct it is now to attack Christians.
Brad, it is often also amazing how politically correct it is to say that something is politically correct!
As you can appreciate, the call of paid employment interferes with a lengthy, overblown response at this time. Suffice it to say that I stand by what I wrote and....
....I have never had a car salesman tell me that "You can trust this dealership because they are good Italians!"
More to follow....
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234300 - 29/09/2004 12:27
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I don't think Kerry is really representative of my ideals, either.
You'll note that I have not once promoted Kerry. I'm not a big fan, either, but I still think he's better than the alternative. I wouldn't go so far as to say "lesser of two evils", but certainly "neutral versus evil".
Quote:
I think fiscal conservativeness is the only way one can create a healthy economy. You can't spend your way out of debt -- that's been proven time and time again on a personal level, and I don't follow the logic that suggests otherwise. Where I don't agree with the Republicans on this point is that they seem to think that privatization is the key to spending less.
First, I tend to agree with the notion of fiscal conservation (if that'd really be the right word). However, I don't see either Democrats or Republicans being fiscally conservative these days. It seems to me that the big fiscal difference between the two is that the Democrats want to spend a lot of money and pay for it now, via taxing the populace, whereas the Republicans want to spend a lot of money and just go into debt -- the governmental equivalent of running up your credit cards.
I at least understand the concept of privatization, unlike many Republican notions, even if I don't agree with it. I think that privatizing plus more corporate rights is a bad path to take, and that's the path the Republicans seem to want.
Also, it's important to note that recessions and depressions can be helped by deficit spending. That's what wars are all about -- becoming fiscally isolationist and spending lots of money to native companies for the war effort. (Okay, it's not all they're about, but you have to admit it's a strong side effect. I wonder if the US would have entered World War II if the Great Depression hadn't been going on at the same time.) Anyway, that's not "spend[ing] your way out of debt", but it's closely related.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234301 - 29/09/2004 13:11
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Substitute the Christian symbols for anything else and I hope you'll see how prejudice you are being.
I have the same attitude on this that Jim does, and you raise a good point. (Other than using the wrong word; it should be "prejudiced".)
It feels to me as if they're saying "you should use my services not because I'm good, but because I'm a Christian". Or Italian. Or whatever. So, in some respects, it makes me feel that they're not going to be as good because they have to have a back door into why someone would want to use them. It also feels kind of insular to me.
At the same time, you're right about there being some prejudice. But being Christian and promoting that fact are choices they made, and I can just as easily choose not to use them. It's not as if I refuse to use plumbers (to pick a random example) because they're Italian (to pick another random example), but if they pointed it out (which is something that, beyond Christian purveyors, is quite uncommon here), it would make me question if they were good at their business.
At the same time, what if someone pointed out that their business was "white owned"?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234302 - 29/09/2004 14:06
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
At the same time, what if someone pointed out that their business was "white owned"?
Ah, the good old double standard. Woman-owned or black-owned is pointed out often.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234303 - 29/09/2004 14:33
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: Daria]
|
addict
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 510
Loc: NY
|
Ah, the good old double standard. Woman-owned or black-owned is pointed out often.
There are some of us who find that offensive too. Especially when you repeatedly get to hear how glad someone is to be dealing with a woman, and what a great person to do business with that makes me. Ugh.
_________________________
Heather
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -Susan B Anthony
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234304 - 29/09/2004 19:41
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
....I have never had a car salesman tell me that "You can trust this dealership because they are good Italians!"
No one with a Christian symbol on their car is saying "trust me or whatever because I'm Christian" so you're comparison to an Italian salesperson doesn't quite fit the other quite bigotted examples you pointed out. By using this example, you open the question, "What if an Italian DID mention his background while trying to sell you a car? Would that justify distain for all Italians who express their heritage via a bumper sticker?" That's clearly what is happening here with your views of Christians.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234305 - 29/09/2004 19:47
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
I have the same attitude on this that Jim does, and you raise a good point. (Other than using the wrong word; it should be "prejudiced".)
Bigot still seams to stick.
Quote:
But being Christian and promoting that fact are choices they made, and I can just as easily choose not to use them.
So it's okay to be Christian, as long as you're not proud of it and have it as part of your identity in the same way people put most stickers on their car? So I guess it's okay to be gay too, just so long as you don't come out of the closet.
Quote:
At the same time, what if someone pointed out that their business was "white owned"?
You're setting yourself up here... You question leads to this one, "What if someone pointed out their business was black owned?" It would be wrong for me to deny them business just because they point out they are black owned for the very same reason that it is wrong of someone to refuse business with someone because they are Christian.
It's funny, you're not so much offended by someone being Christian, you're just offended at someone being proud of it. Do you propose I use a different drinking fountain from you as well?
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234306 - 29/09/2004 19:58
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
No one with a Christian symbol on their car is saying "trust me or whatever because I'm Christian"
Well, his initial complaint was about the symbols on the business cards, and only peripherally related to bumper stickers. But I think that "trust me because I'm Christian" might be precisely what they're trying to say with the business cards. Why else would you put a symbol of your faith on your business card, unless you were specifically trying to increase responses from others of the same faith?
You claim that expressing disdain for this practice makes him prejudiced. But think about it... The prejudice is actually there on the business card itself. It's the guy who chose to put the fish on the card that's prejudiced. He's saying, "I specifically want to do business with, and increase customer response from, others of my faith."
If that's not being prejudiced, then I don't know what is.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234307 - 29/09/2004 20:05
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
Well, his initial complaint was about the symbols on the business cards, and only peripherally related to bumper stickers. But I think that "trust me because I'm Christian" might be precisely what they're trying to say with the business cards. Why else would you put a symbol of your faith on your business card, unless you were specifically trying to increase responses from others of the same faith?
You claim that expressing disdain for this practice makes him prejudiced. But think about it... The prejudice is actually there on the business card itself. It's the guy who chose to put the fish on the card that's prejudiced. He's saying, "I specifically want to do business with, and increase customer response from, others of my faith."
No. It's just a symbol on a card. You are inferring all of these things because of a symbol on a card. If the first question the contractor asked you before even giving you the card was if you were Christian or not, then it'd be different. But you are making judgements on someone's intentions and views based solely on their faith. Text book example of prejudice.
Again, if someone claims their business was black owned and operated are we all to assume that they "specifically want to do business with, and increase customer response from, others of their ethnicity?"
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234308 - 29/09/2004 20:15
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
But you are making judgements on someone's intentions and views based solely on their faith. Text book example of prejudice.
No, not based solely on their faith. Based solely on their choice to advertise their faith as an integral part of the advertising for their business.
It's not prejudice to assume that if they put a fish symbol on their business card, they're trying to say something. I don't think my idea of what they're saying is a farfetched one.
I admit that, even if I'm right about what they're trying to say, it still could be considered a prejudice. I mean, I certainly didn't ask the guy why he put the fish there, I assumed. And even if I'm right about why, I still assumed.
Quote:
Again, if someone claims their business was black owned and operated are we all to assume that they "specifically want to do business with, and increase customer response from, others of their ethnicity?"
Yes, that's exactly what I expect we are all to assume. What else should we infer from that?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234309 - 29/09/2004 20:25
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
Yes, that's exactly what I expect we are all to assume. What else should we infer from that?
That they have pride in their ethnicity.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234310 - 29/09/2004 20:29
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
That they have pride in their ethnicity.
I disagree with that interpretation. I think they'd be trying to say a lot more than they're proud, when it's expressed as an integral part of the advertising of their business.
When someone puts their telephone number on their business card, they're not saying they're proud they own a telephone.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234311 - 29/09/2004 21:04
Expressing yourself through symbols
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
FWIW, one thing that is emphasized in most of the churches that I've attended is standing up and not hiding your faith. In fact, if we truly are saved from our sins it makes perfect sense that we’d want to proclaim our identity in Christ for the entire world to see. For many this means wearing T-Shirts, putting bumper stickers and fish on cars, and yes, fish on business cards and other such things. It is a way to show others that we are not Christians only on Sunday mornings when we go to church, but in everything we do. Of course it goes without saying that for this to be true our faith must be lived beyond wearing a symbol of identify- that kind of hypocrisy speaks volumes and is a huge turn off to non Christians (as evidenced in this thread). I realize that there have been those who wish to be treated differently or favored because they are Christians, but the vast majority of people I know who do all of the above are sincere in trying to communicate their identity in all that they do, not win business.
Personally, I don't generally don't rely on external labels to identify myself, except for sometimes wearing a cross around my neck (which doesn't always identify a Christian anyway- this is more of a personal thing to focus my thoughts during the day). There are multiple reasons I don't use symbols, certainly near the top is the fact that they are ambiguous and often don't leave much room for personal interaction (not to mention often they are tacky or even wrong in the case of T-Shirts and bumper stickers). Another drawback is that people assume they know all they need to about you when they see that fish (once again, this thread is an evidence of that). I generally haven't had difficulty demonstrating to others that I'm a Christian without having any symbolism around me- even without explicitly talking about God around people they soon figure it out. None of this is to say I don't think Christians should have symbols; they just aren't for me. For some it is a natural and valid way to express themselves.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234312 - 29/09/2004 21:11
Re: Expressing yourself through symbols
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Well said, and well reasoned.
I don't necessarily believe everyone who puts fish on business cards has the same point of view, but when you put it like that, I can see how it's feasible they could have that point of view.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234313 - 29/09/2004 22:37
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
I think they'd be trying to say a lot more than they're proud, when it's expressed as an integral part of the advertising of their business.
In the example I posted earlier, my father-in-law puts the Italian flag on his business card for one reason and one reason only - he is proud of it. It isn't a business move, it's just something he is proud of. Out of all of the work we've done in the 3 past years (that I've been actively involved), I'd say only 5-10% of our work has been for other Italians. Sure, this is just one example, but you'd need a lot of proven examples to come to the conclusion that most Chrisitans who put symbols on business material are in some way being prejudiced against non-Christians.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234314 - 29/09/2004 23:00
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
Quote:
No. It's just a symbol on a card.
When an average white guy can print "proud to be a white, heterosexual, atheist male" on his business card and not get harassed by every person he gives is to then you can argue that a religious symbol is "just a symbol on a card" until then you should expect people to take it in the same vein most here would the above phrase.
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234315 - 29/09/2004 23:02
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Ask your father-in-law. Ask him if he honestly believes that having the Italian flag on his business card does not influence a potential Italian customer in any way. Ask him if he also has the Italian flag in his phone book ad, or, if he doesn't have an ad, if he would put it there if he were to buy one? And if the answer is yes, ask him this: "Let's say an Italian person was looking through the phone book, and he saw several competing businesses. Do you think that seeing the Italian flag might make them more likely to choose your business over its competitors?" I will concede that it's possible the thought never occurred to him, and that the accusations I've leveled here are baseless in his case at least. But I'd be very curious to know his answer to those questions. Please note: All of the above is null and void if his business is an Italian restaurant. Also note that I'm Italian, too, and I would not be influenced one way or the other by an Italian flag on a business card or a phone book ad.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234316 - 29/09/2004 23:40
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: mcomb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
When an average white guy can print "proud to be a white, heterosexual, atheist male" on his business card and not get harassed by every person he gives is to then you can argue that a religious symbol is "just a symbol on a card" until then you should expect people to take it in the same vein most here would the above phrase.
We've already addressed how there is a double standard against any white person from doing this. Because of certain dark parts of our history, this sounds too much like white superiority.
A more fair example would be is it wrong for someone to put "black and proud" or "vegetarian owned" on a business card.
General observation: The discussion has changed a bit now.. Earlier, it was suggested that putting a symbol on a card was a way of offending anyone who didn't fit that particular group and it was a way to claim superiority. Yet, Tony's most recent post suggests only that putting a symbol on a card might generate certain feelings of community (ie, the Christian community or Italian community). I'll see what answers I can get out of my father-in-law (minor language barrier here) but I hope that the notion of a Christian implying that all atheist are untrustworthy is as ridiculous as the notion that my father-in-law would be implying that all non-Italians don't know how to run a construction business.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234317 - 30/09/2004 04:40
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Quote:
Christ was about charity, forgiveness, good stewardship, uplifting the poor and middle class, etc,
Sounds like you need a few re-reads of your Bible. While all of those things are represented, that's clearly not what Christ was about.
Really? Feel free to toss a few scripture references my way that I can start with. I can't think of too anywhere in the Bible (aside from the Old Testament, which was the old code that Christ was trying to change) that suggest that.
Quote:
Furthermore, Christ advocated charity, forgiveness, etc on a personal level as a result of a changed heart (being spirtually born again). Any of those things are more meaningless to him than a pile of filthy rags apart from that.
Okay, so if Christ advocates those on a personal level, and a Christian political leader supposedly gets his political ethics and direction from his personal ethics and relationship with Christ (as JeffS suggests), then how do you plan to reconcile the obvious disparity between the two in the case of so many of our conservative Christian political leaders?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234318 - 30/09/2004 05:48
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
General observation: The discussion has changed a bit now.. Earlier, it was suggested that putting a symbol on a card was a way of offending anyone who didn't fit that particular group and it was a way to claim superiority. Yet, Tony's most recent post suggests only that putting a symbol on a card might generate certain feelings of community (ie, the Christian community or Italian community).
I noticed that, as well. I don't wear 37 pieces of flair, but I do have a subtle signal as my personalized license plate -- sort of my "flag on a backpack" that Canucks are known for. It's there for a few reasons, and I think those reasons lend credence to all the theories mentioned.
First, I'm proud to be Canadian, even though I'm not a flag-waving, face-painting "Patriot". Second, it's there for any fellow Canadians to notice, and get the joke. I've gotten the occasional honk from passing cars with with Canadian plates/stickers/etc., so yes, it does generate a small amount of community feelings. Third, when I dig deep and answer honestly, yes, it's there because I do feel superior to the general American populace (and before anyone thinks less of me for that, let me note that my mother is American, and I have dual Canadian/US citizenship). My nationality doesn't make me feel superior on an individual level, talking person-to-person, though -- I certainly don't feel superior to anyone on this BBS, and in fact, there's quite a few here that I feel vastly inferior to, regardless of nationality.
I think those first and last really form a circle, because pride, in my observance of life -- is just a subtle way of saying "I feel superior." Not being proud of something, however, doesn't equate to being ashamed, either, as was intimated earlier in the thread. For example, I don't feel proud of what I do at work. I know I'm good at what I do, and I'm pleased with it, but not "proud". It just... is. Likewise, I'm not proud or ashamed of being tall, I just am. I'm not proud to be an American, I just am. Yet, for some reason, I feel proud to be Canadian, and even though I had no choice in where I or anyone else is born, heck yeah, that trait makes me feel like I'm in a minorly better class of people. (As I proof-read this, I'm now noting that there's a difference between the verbs "to feel" and "to be", and I make a conscious choice of using the first -- i.e. I'm aware that my feelings don't necessarily reflect reality.)
Ultimately, what JeffS said about not decking himself out in religious symbols resonates with me. It's like that old adage that if you're good, and you know it, that you don't have to tell everyone, and can just go about being good at whatever it is. Everyone who matters knows you're good.
Heh. Flame away.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234319 - 30/09/2004 11:43
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Because of certain dark parts of our history, this sounds too much like white superiority.
A more fair example would be is it wrong for someone to put "black and proud"
First, there's a lot of history of Christian supremacy, too. Many other religious groups were kept down by Christians and sects of Christianity, both in and out of this country. Second, there's a decent history of (attempted?) black supremacy, too, and even more black separatism. Third, I'm terribly offended by that double-standard that makes it okay for black people to be proud but not white people. It's not as if black folks are more racially homogenous than white folks; they come from as many different places, and very few of them have connections to their Zulu or Pygmy or Ethiopian or whatever heritage. Fourth, I think it's divisive. So, yes, that would be offensive to me in much the same way that "Christian owned" offends me.
Quote:
"vegetarian owned"
I'll admit that this wouldn't offend me, but largely because my reaction would be dominated with "huh?". I can't imagine that this would ever happen (unless it was for a restaurant or a granola-y type of store or unless cruelty-free was a part of their advertising otherwise, in which case, it'd seem relevant), so it's hard to fairly judge what a reaction would be.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234320 - 30/09/2004 16:17
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
Quote:
We've already addressed how there is a double standard against any white person from doing this. Because of certain dark parts of our history, this sounds too much like white superiority.
As opposed to say the crusades, witch burning, overzealous missionaries destroying native cultures, the KKK (predominantly very religious people), and all the other injustices perpetrated by religious groups or people?
Quote:
A more fair example would be is it wrong for someone to put "black and proud" or "vegetarian owned" on a business card.
And I would find those objectionable as well on most business cards. I don't print my shirt size on my business card so why should you print your culinary habits on yours? Its an issue of relevancy (or lack thereof). Unless the issue is relevant to your business than the only logical assumption is that you are trying to sway people with similar beliefs, tastes, whatever to do business with you.
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234321 - 30/09/2004 18:56
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: mcomb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
To both you and Bitt. I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I wasn't justifying the double standard against whites, I was just pointing to its cause. Both of you seem quite comfortable lumping all Christians together because of such things as the Crusades and witch burning. Is that how you see me? A witch burning Crusader? I mean what are you trying to say? Any of us could give bad examples of any cultural group that some would use as justification for prejudice. Is that what you're trying to do here? It just amazes me how so many of you feel so comfortable looking down on Christians or putting thoughts or intentions in our heads. Is that all I am to you? Are we just going to sit here throwing examples and counter examples at one another? Is it even worth me communicating to any of you or do you conclude that I must be Christian so I must in some way be trying to use exclusionary tactics to either sway people over to my belief system or only reach out to people that share the same faith as me because why else would I have ever mentioned that I'm Christian?
This is really getting out of control here. Is your ideal world some sort of grey colored mix where nobody can identify themselves as anything or take pride in anything without being perceived as trying to offend of exclude a group that does not match that desciption?
I think I'm done with Off Topic for a few months.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234322 - 30/09/2004 19:13
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
A witch burning Crusader?
Well, was she made of wood, or not??
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234323 - 30/09/2004 19:17
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234324 - 30/09/2004 19:36
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Both of you seem quite comfortable lumping all Christians together because of such things as the Crusades and witch burning.
No, we're just pointing out that double-standard exists, and that it's reprehensible. I don't intend to lump all Christians together. I don't believe that my wife, for example, has much in common with you or Jeff or Jon beyond the fact that you all believe in the same person from 2000 years ago. I have not once said anything bad about Christians, only ones who wear it on their sleeves in what appears to me to be an exclusionary tactic. Even then, I only complained about the practice, not the people, although I'll admit to a prejudice against the people who use that tactic. In my experience, they are the people I'd rather avoid. My wife tends to agree, even if she's somewhat less dogmatic about it than I am.
That being said, I do actually use a Christian-branded VCR repairman, because he's good, fast, and cheap. He was recommended to me by someone else, otherwise I'd probably have avoided him. (In reality, I beleve that the man is Arabic, but I'm not sure. He has a vague indeterminate accent and olive skin. He could be Greek for all I know.) But he's not in that I'm better than you mode by any stretch of the imagination, though he does wear it on his sleeve, which bothers me, though he's certainly genuine about it.
I think the thing that sits wrong with me has a close relationship with your question "why else would I have ever mentioned that I'm Christian?". I think that's the crux of the matter. Why would you bring it up? Your religion, IMO, is a matter between you and your God. I'm not relevant to it at all. It's exactly like saying "I'd like to be your plumber, and, by the way, I really like Happy Days." It may be accurate; it may be something that's important to you, perhaps very important, but it does not affect me at all, and, honestly, I don't care to hear about it. It's certainly within your rights to tell me, but it's also within my rights to not care and be irritated by it.
People can express themselves as much as they want. They can be proud of things. But that doesn't mean that everyone is going to magically like them and that no one will be offended. If they think that's the case, they're terribly naive. Religion in particular pulls up strong emotions. If they think that they can get the good ones and there be no bad ones, again, they're naive. And the place for group pride is not in advertising I don't think. I have no problem with a Christian pride parade any more than I have a problem with a Gay pride parade or Irish pride or whatever.
Again, I'll admit to lumping the Christian advertisers together, but I do not lump all Christians together. I don't think badly of you, despite the fact that you keep trying to put words in my mouth. I haven't yet figured out if you're just being argumentative, if you're really trying to understand what I'm saying and I'm not expressing myself clearly enough, or if you just can't comprehend my attitude.
Eh; I've totally lost my train of thought. Rest assured that I don't think you're an idiot or hate you or anything.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234325 - 30/09/2004 19:53
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
I have not once said anything bad about Christians, only ones who wear it on their sleeves in what appears to me to be an exclusionary tactic.
"I don't do it, except when I do."
I know what you were getting at, and I believe you, but I gotta say, you're a flip-flopper. I'm not voting for you.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234326 - 30/09/2004 20:01
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I meant I never said anything bad about Christians as a whole, rather only that subset. For those that might not have understood what I meant.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234327 - 30/09/2004 20:04
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Bitt, you've made me think of a point that I kept meaning to say in this thread...
In my posts about the fish-on-the-business-card, I was trying to glean the motives behind putting it there. I wasn't trying to say it's inherently bad. Whether the reason a person puts it there is pride, or an attempt to draw Christian customers, either way, it's a free country.
If a fish on a business card gets them more customers, then more power to 'em. That's capitalism. If they're doing it for pride only, okay fine. Seeing the fish makes me, a potential customer, think consciously about their motives for putting it there, so I don't know if that's what they want or not. Maybe it is.
Of course, if they also exclude all non-Christians from their employed staff, then that becomes a completely different question. But a fish on a business card? Go for it. You'll piss a few people off, but probably make buddies with others. The people who get pissed off, you probably didn't want as a customer anyway.
... wait, or did you? Hm.
Now we're into the question of... What reaction does it cause, regardless of the motive? And what if the result is a different reaction than they expected?
If the fish produces a negative reaction in some people as expressed by others in this thread (even if the reaction is an incorrect assumption based on prejudice), then is that really what they wanted to put on the card? Are these people even aware that it turns some people off? Do they know that it's going to change the response demographic?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234328 - 30/09/2004 20:21
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
My uninformed opinion would be that they'd think that, at worst, it'd be a non-issue, but when presented with the notion that people may avoid them because of it, they'd back it up with the "I don't want them as customers anyway" argument. Now, if that'd be based on "in for a penny, in for a pound" mentality or actual disgust I won't make a guess on. (So I won't make a guess as to the intentions of these fictional people who I've uninformedly made up actions for in the first place. Strange where I draw the line, huh?)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234329 - 30/09/2004 21:49
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
Quote:
To both you and Bitt. I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I wasn't justifying the double standard against whites, I was just pointing to its cause.
I was just pointing out that there is a similar viewpoint (not sure I'd call it a double standard) against organized religion. I'm certainly not saying either is a healthy or valid viewpoint, just pointing out that there will be some people out there who will recoil from both in a similar way.
Quote:
Is that how you see me? A witch burning Crusader? I mean what are you trying to say?
No, not at all. I don't assume you are a witch burning, crusader anymore than I assume the aforementioned proud white guy is a KKK member. Your right though, we went far enough on that tangent anyway.
Your obviously an intelligent, rational and caring human being. I base this on your words and actions not the labels you place on yourself. I realize that the labels are largely irrelevant (to me, obviously not you) which is part of the reason I object to the need for the publicly displayed labels in the first place. I don't assume anything about you because you are a Christian which may be the crux of the matter for me. If I find out in a casual way that my plumber is a religious man it in no way changes my opinion of him, but if I find out from his add or his business card it becomes an unnecessary and irrelevant part of his sales pitch. It's no different than my slimy car salesman trying to mimic my lifestyle and beliefs to ingratiate himself to me in the hopes that I'll buy a car from him now that he is my "friend".
Quote:
I think I'm done with Off Topic for a few months.
Sorry, I really didn't mean to make you uncomfortable. I generally try to avoid these types of conversations for exactly that reason.
-Mike
Edited by mcomb (30/09/2004 22:11)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234330 - 01/10/2004 05:15
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Brad! Well, this thread has gone places I would not have guessed, but I can't regret that. Think of what it may have done for the stagnant keyboard industry. As has happened before, I have either started or contributed to a thread and then not been able to keep up in real time. That is usually a combination of: trying to figure out how to respond; being a crummy typist who has to dedicate serious blocks of time to translate thoughts into text; and that whole gainful employment thing. It seems that teh only time I get to respond is when there's a presidential debate on the telly. I sifted back through a number of posts in the thread since the point that I was called a bigot, IIRC, and will try to contribute back to the thread some motley collection of my thoughts. From that sifting, I pasted a bunch of things that you and others have said and will try to use them as a fulcrum for my response. If anyone feels that I have cherry-picked or used their comments out of context, please send me an e-mail with the subject "Jim, you are a really bad person".... Brad: Quote:
No, it's saying "I'm proud of my faith." That's it.
I'll take your word for that. I don't think that is what *everyone* is saying with their fish.
Tangent: I could have sworn I got into a discussion on this BBS about the lyrics to this song and about how I got into *another* BBS discussion (on another BBS/list) with some Christian country music fans. They all either reassured or pressured me ("you are being *Way* too politically correct!") to think that "It is just a song! Relax! Get over it!"
This may seem completely unrelated to this thread, but the stake I am trying to put in the ground is the notion of how people perceive what they do in the context of their own social norms versus how their actions can be perceived by others who don't share the same beliefs of the same sense of "the norms". Is Montgomery's "Little Girl" just a song? *I* certainly don't think so. What do you think?
Brad:
Quote:
No one with a Christian symbol on their car is saying "trust me or whatever because I'm Christian" so you're comparison to an Italian salesperson doesn't quite fit the other quite bigotted examples you pointed out.
I unfairly asked a negative rhetorical question here without explaining it. What I meant to imply is that I actually *have* have a car salesman (at a big local VW dealer) confide to me that I could trust the dealership because the owners were good Christians. I could almost see his Tony Robbins teeth shatter when I told him that that particular aspect of his sales pitch could be deal breaker for me (I could see a bit of the "sh*t, that's what the sales manager told me to day!" in his eyes. Oh, I don't know. Maybe he had "gone rogue", but it didn't seem like it). Anyhow, it was interesting to talk with some folks 2 years later about how shabbily they felt thay had been treated *after* they bought their car there.
Brad:
Quote:
No. It's just a symbol on a card. You are inferring all of these things because of a symbol on a card. If the first question the contractor asked you before even giving you the card was if you were Christian or not, then it'd be different
With the previous "No one with a Christian symbol on their car" and "It's just a symbol on a card." you, as a Christian (I think you have said you are such) would seem to be generalizing about Christians thoughts and deeds in a way that would cause me to be labeled as a bigot if I did the same as a non-Christian. Oh, I don't know. Maybe these two absolutes were published in the August Secret Christian Newsletter and I just didn't get my copy (I signed up under an assumed name and I think they got my address wrong!).
Quote:
Bigot still seams to stick.
It is funny. I think my skin is probably thicker than dbrashear's -- at least on my butt and other critical areas. I am too old to be thin-skinned. OK, there are some things I will get torqued about. Say something like "your buddy Bill Clinton" and I will respond testily within a nansecond to correct you. But if you want to think I am a bigot or prejudiced? Cool. Whatever. Everybody is prejudiced. I guess the question is what we do with it.
With respect to my perceptions of the Christian ( I think they shorted it to xTian on some BBS) fish planted next to the "Proud to be an American" bumper sticker on the back of a (foreign?) car, I probably also did not elaborate enough...
Part of what prompted my "pissed off" comment was the experience I have had with some of those folks (who IMHO wanted me to trust them because they were Christians). The canvas guy? Quoted me ~$600 for a $300 job in 1991 I *think* because he assumed that I was a rich boat owner (instead of a near-broke public employee) and thought he could shoot the moon and get away with it. The painting guy? Kept dancing around the price tag for an easily estimatable job (sleazebag!) with some "Don't you worry. I'll treat you right." bulls*t based (I *think*) on his assumption that I was probably part of the club. This the painter I was referred to by the (Christian, as I discovered later) self-storage manager who also put me in contact with some independent (read:unlicensed, uninsured) movers who "I could trust" (read: Christians). Anyhow, the movers turned out to be reasonally OK.
I don't mean to read too much into this particular series of experiences, but just to use them as an example. If, in Michigan, the fish is "just a symbol on a card" then I would say that is *way* different from what I see here. The remodeler's cube van with the big-ass fish on it? Sorry Brad, that isn't just pride. It is advertising. I won't presume to speak for Christians, but I won't deny my experience.
In the politically-correct vein, the notion of "You can trust me, I'm Italian" probably hasn't faded too far into our past. When I think of an insular neighborhood like Boston's North End or Southie, there is and was a certain neighborhood loyalty that hewed close to ethnic and religious lines that you can't say is all bad. Support your neighbor's/neighborhood businesses -- and you maybe *can* trust them because you know them. It probably isn't useful or relevant in this context to think too much about the negatives in those neighborhoods....
What I see in "the Fish" sometimes, though, is not sense of community but of "hanging out a shingle". The notion that "It is just a symbol on a card" just does not hold. At least the gents at the Rotary Club will admit they are there in great part to advance their business interests. What is so hard about that?
Quote:
In the example I posted earlier, my father-in-law puts the Italian flag on his business card for one reason and one reason only - he is proud of it. It isn't a business move, it's just something he is proud of. Out of all of the work we've done in the 3 past years (that I've been actively involved), I'd say only 5-10% of our work has been for other Italians.
Actually, with the shifting demographics in some cities, trying to use an Italian flag as an advertising prop could be a losing proposition. I don't know your father-in-law, but if you say he puts the flag on his business card for reasons of pride alone, I can believe it. Maybe I have met him.
Quote:
Sure, this is just one example, but you'd need a lot of proven examples to come to the conclusion that most Chrisitans who put symbols on business material are in some way being prejudiced against non-Christians.
Are Christians who put symbols on their business materials being "prejudiced against non-Christaian". I don't want to generalize too much about the intent of a large group of people, but I am willing to bet thet a lot of them don't see it that way. And I am not saying that any of these people are starting with a conscious desire to piss me off. However, I think it come down to a common disconnect between what people believe they are doing and how that is perceived by folks outside of their "norm club". I would also couple this with with the common phenomenon of what I think can be characterized as cognitive dissonance: "I put the fish on my business card because I'm proud, not because I am an aspiring enterpreneur.....my isn't it nice -- the side benefit that I can also send the secret handshake to customers, develop business contacts and make a lot of money?....but I really put the fish on just because I am proud." Reverend Ike marches on in more subtle ways.
Prejudiced or not, I definitely have developed some suspicious opinions on this, but it is not all from simple prejudice and a lot of it is from direct dealings. I also think (wow, no huge surprise) that in this country there is a pretty direct connection between religion and politics in this realm that fortifies my suspicious opinions. Any of the folks that I know that have gone the way of Amway have adopted a certain evangelical zeal and have fallen into more evangelical religious beliefs at the same time -- and political views to fit. Correlations between plastic fish and an array of conservative bumper stickers are not absolute/100% but are definitely there. I would say that there is also a correlation with enterpreneurial, individualist (government should be smaller) politics that I hope you won't be offended if I guess that your views may represent.
McComb:
Quote:
When an average white guy can print "proud to be a white, heterosexual, atheist male" on his business card and not get harassed by every person he gives is to then you can argue that a religious symbol is "just a symbol on a card" until then you should expect people to take it in the same vein most here would the above phrase.
At Lucent, our group had a friendly manager who was "born-again" and who routinely fired up his laptop for presentations (hooked up to a LCD projector) with a screensaver that would scroll Psalms and Bible verses during breaks in the presentation. No one blinked. Nobody -- no higher manager in the room -- pulled James aside and said "Hey, do you think that is really appropriate?" I just ignored it. He was actually a pretty nice guy with this little blind spot. I had to chuckle, though, as I thought about what the reaction would be -- and how long my employment would last-- if I plugged in my laptop with a Church of The Big Invisible Guy screensaver or if one of engineers from further afield fired up a Koran screensaver. But James? He was in the norm.
Brad:
Quote:
General observation: The discussion has changed a bit now.. Earlier, it was suggested that putting a symbol on a card was a way of offending anyone who didn't fit that particular group and it was a way to claim superiority.
I don't know that it was argued that it was a (conscious) "way to offend anyone" even as I did say that *I* found some of it offensive. A way to claim superiority? I think canuckinLA touched on a confession that *sure* some of those obvious and not-so-obvious signs of pride are definitely about feeling superior on some level. It would be hell being at all opinionated if you didn't have some sense of being right whiel thinking others are wrong. With religious convictions, though, expressed through what feels like both high and low-grade proselytization to me -- the "Have a blessed day!" at the checkout counter or airport security checkpoint or the Amway-esque, out-of-place named-dropping of "well after church on Sunday" 30 times ina 3 minute business converstaion -- I defintely do get the sense of lot of people who just can't help let you know how lucky they are and how good they are. I often feel that these folks are trying to bolster or reassure themsleves. In the cases of "dry drunks" like our Mister Bush, I often think that they have dropped on addictive bahavior in favor of another. Oh well. Salvation is at least not known to cause liver failure.
CanuckinLA:
Quote:
Ultimately, what JeffS said about not decking himself out in religious symbols resonates with me. It's like that old adage that if you're good, and you know it, that you don't have to tell everyone, and can just go about being good at whatever it is. Everyone who matters knows you're good.
ka-ching.
wfaulk:
Quote:
Even then, I only complained about the practice, not the people, although I'll admit to a prejudice against the people who use that tactic. In my experience, they are the people I'd rather avoid. My wife tends to agree, even if she's somewhat less dogmatic about it than I am.
Perhaps to my detriment, I sometimes object to the pratice in principal, but then can't separate the people.
tfabris:
Quote:
If a fish on a business card gets them more customers, then more power to 'em. That's capitalism. If they're doing it for pride only, okay fine. Seeing the fish makes me, a potential customer, think consciously about their motives for putting it there, so I don't know if that's what they want or not. Maybe it is.
Of course, if they also exclude all non-Christians from their employed staff, then that becomes a completely different question. But a fish on a business card? Go for it. You'll piss a few people off, but probably make buddies with others. The people who get pissed off, you probably didn't want as a customer anyway.
... wait, or did you? Hm.
Intent versus percieved intent. It is tough. I expect our politicians to think about things like that. As you say , though, if somebody want to put *whatever* on their business card -- a flag burning, say! -- they should go for it....but they shouldn't get all bent out of shape at people's reactions.
Discrimination? I have hired 4-5 people over the past decade whose beliefs/views were 300 times closer to my estimates of Brad's or Jeff's beliefs than my own. Hired for what they could do. Thankfully, none of them blurted out "You should hire me because I am a Christian!" during the interview or I would have been in a big pot of moral-quandary hot water!
Quote:
Now we're into the question of... What reaction does it cause, regardless of the motive? And what if the result is a different reaction than they expected?
We live in complex societies. I don't think that there is any way to avoid thinking about how our actions are perceived to some extent. And, yes, I think it wouldn't hurt if some folks worked on a little more insight into their own motives.... The old saying "somebody who asks you about your religion? Well, they are usually interested in telling you about theirs!" comes to mind.
mccomb:
Quote:
If I find out in a casual way that my plumber is a religious man it in no way changes my opinion of him, but if I find out from his add or his business card it becomes an unnecessary and irrelevant part of his sales pitch. It's no different than my slimy car salesman trying to mimic my lifestyle and beliefs to ingratiate himself to me in the hopes that I'll buy a car from him now that he is my "friend".
Agreed.
Brad:
Quote:
This is really getting out of control here. Is your ideal world some sort of grey colored mix where nobody can identify themselves as anything or take pride in anything without being perceived as trying to offend of exclude a group that does not match that desciption?
I don't think I heard anybody say that but you.
Quote:
I think I'm done with Off Topic for a few months.
Well, that would be too bad.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234331 - 01/10/2004 09:48
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Is Montgomery's "Little Girl" just a song? *I* certainly don't think so. What do you think?
I don't remember what I said the last time you brought this up, but I still really don't understand the offence. Does the song itself offend you, or does the fact that Montgomery sings it offend you? Country music is kind of a strange place where you can be wildely irrerverent in one song and thing sing about Jesus in the next and both things ressonate with listeners.
I seem to remember that you don't like the song because you feel like it paints ALL non-Christians as drug addicts and child abusers. I never would have gotten that sense from the song, but reading the first verse I sort of see where you could get that. I think the point of the first verse was not to say "the parents are bad because they aren't Christians," but to say "the girl never went to church so isn't it neat when she already knew who Jesus was first time she ever went to church?" I think that's what's supposed to make us nod and smile at the end of the song. If I were an atheist (totally guessing here), I'd think my reaction would be one of rolling my eyes, not offense. As it is, the reason I'm not crazy about the song is because it lacks credability. Montgomery is out there singing non-Christian songs and then for him to throw this one in just kind of belittles the point to me. Like "I think Jesus is cool when I have a cute story", but the rest of the time I don't really care about faith. But that's the way it is in country music. A lot of these guys don't write their own material so you get widely varying themes in their music. You can be getting drunk in one song and talking about sinners who drink in the next.
But to take this further, what do you think of Christian music? On point, that's pretty much all I write and I spend a LOT of my time doing it. My intention is to encourage other Christians in their faith and show non-believers what I consider to be the truth. If they started playing a song I wrote on the radio, would that be offensive? To be sure, my intention is not to make Christian music because it sells better (boy would that be a mistake!) but because it is just what comes out when I write.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234332 - 01/10/2004 11:57
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I still really don't understand the offence
The implication, intended or not, is that atheists are addicts who are likely to kill people and that Christians are nice folks. However, you're at least somewhat right in that country music is often about specific stories, and it could be seen in that light -- as the specific story of this little girl.
As to artists who travel back and forth between Christian-related songs and ones that are secular -- I find artists who pigeonhole themselves to be artistically reprehensible. Why have you chosen to only ever do one thing? What if you come up with a song that you feel strongly about -- let's say an anti-drug screed, to pick something that's probably also important to that crowd. Do you release it despite the fact that it has no direct relationship to religion? Do you keep it under wraps? Or do you shoehorn religion into it, despite the fact that it makes no sense for it to be there?
How do you feel about Amy Grant, who's had a career dominated by Christian music, but who has occasionally gone out and done secular pop stuff? Or any of the various gospel artists who travel back and forth between gospel and soul? Or U2, who are mostly a rock band, but who occasionally have a Christian-oriented song? Or the thousands of other bands who never mention religion at all? I suppose there are various types of people, from those whose religion is all-consuming to those who are religious, but have other aspects of their being, to those who are only slightly religious, to those who are areligious. Your notion that the idea that only occasionally mentioning religion is disingenuous strikes me as coming from a person who doesn't recognize that there are other people who have other aspects to their lives beyond religion. That doesn't necessarily make them liars or armchair Christians; it just means that they have other concerns, too.
On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of the having-someone-else-write-all-your-music scene. That in itself seems disingenuous to me, but that's another topic altogether.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234333 - 01/10/2004 14:11
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
As to artists who travel back and forth between Christian-related songs and ones that are secular -- I find artists who pigeonhole themselves to be artistically reprehensible.
Well, let me clear this up. What I don’t like about the Montgomery song mentioned earlier is largely what you don’t like about fish on business cards. It seems like a “let me get sentimental about faith” kind of song to simply appeal to people who are religious. I could be wrong; I really don’t know his motives. But I don’t like when people kind of attach spirituality in an attempt to gain respect or a following. Talk about waffling! I guess I’m on the other side now. I suppose I don’t get the feeling that this song is an honest expression, and that bothers me.
As for other artists who do some spiritual stuff and other songs not, I think that’s cool. One of my favorite artists, David Wilcox, is excellent at that. I like U2, am not a big fan of Amy Grant, and have various feelings about the other “crossover” artists. But, as I’m sure you know, I also like plenty of music like Rush that doesn’t line up with Christianity at all. In general, I like music that is honest and deals with the convictions of the artist. Sometimes lyrics are just garbage and I like it because the music itself is great.
Quote:
Why have you chosen to only ever do one thing?
Because that’s all that comes out. I’ve honestly tried to write other stuff, but when I speak it’s about my closest held beliefs. I also must admit that I view the purpose of my music as greater than just writing songs, however I wouldn’t stifle a “non-spiritual” song just because it doesn’t mention God. I know of numerous examples of artists who I respect who’ve written songs without “God, Jesus, Holy Spirit” in them. I just haven’t written any (I am not a very subtle person, so I think that accounts for a lot of this). However, in the end whatever I write I will try to make as honest an expression as possible because that’s the reason I love to write and play- it’s a way to express myself.
So let me ask you, what is it that you find reprehensible about being singing only music about faith?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234334 - 01/10/2004 14:23
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 24/07/2003
Posts: 500
Loc: Colorado, N.A.
|
Once again, Jeff, we're closer than you might think. Just as you suggested, my initial reaction to the first part of the song was to roll my eyes, but by the end, I'd decided that it was a cute country song, competently if somewhat melodramatically told.
As for a "suggestion" about non-Christians, isn't that like saying "The Sopranos" is a slur on all Italian-Americans? It's a story.
_________________________
-- DLF
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234335 - 01/10/2004 16:10
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
First, let me clear up one thing. When I said "you" there, I should have said "one". I wasn't intending to single you out. Especially since I know nothing about your music writing beyond the fact that you do write Christian-themed songs without any knowledge of the percentage they make up of your catalog. Or at least I didn't when I wrote it.
The thing that I find reprehensible artistically is that, as an artist, it's your job to inspire thought, and when you choose to limit what you say, you choose to limit your expressiveness. I think that it undercuts the ability to create art. It's like deciding to be an author but refusing to use the letters 'F', 'M', and 'Q'.
On the other hand, if you honestly don't have any other subjects about which you care about enough to write a song, then that's a different matter. Then it's just coincidence. But I get the feeling from the widely publicized teen-oriented Christian rock concerts that if another theme came up, people would be confused. I suppose it'd be equally odd if someone played "The Ride of the Valkyries" in a Sunday morning service, though. I just think that limiting yourself as an artist or listener is a bad thing.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234336 - 01/10/2004 16:36
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I suppose it'd be equally odd if someone played "The Ride of the Valkyries" in a Sunday morning service
Or uncannily appropriate, depending on the sermon.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234337 - 01/10/2004 19:51
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
First, let me clear up one thing. When I said "you" there, I should have said "one".
Oh yeah. I should have understood that. My bad.
Quote:
The thing that I find reprehensible artistically is that, as an artist, it's your job to inspire thought, and when you choose to limit what you say, you choose to limit your expressiveness. I think that it undercuts the ability to create art. It's like deciding to be an author but refusing to use the letters 'F', 'M', and 'Q'.
I don't think most Christian artists explicitly limit themselves. It's more to do with the reason that they're writing in the first place. For me, I'd probably be writing music, Christian or not. I love music and I love the process of creating it, even more so than playing it. However, if I'm going to have words it has to be about something (well, OK technically that's not true, but it's at least a widely utilized option!). The music that resonates with me most is that which is about personal beliefs and so that's what I write about. That's one reason I like Rush so much: their music is very much about how they (or Peart at least) see the world. Even though I disagree with most of their views, it's a topic that really resonates with me. If I go back and read some less spiritual poetry I wrote in High School I can see that even then I was focused on the nature of mankind, what our purpose is, and other similar themes. As I grew spiritually my writing started showing greater and greater influences from my faith. Even if I were to write a love song (which I can't seem to do) it'd probably have some (perhaps not explicit) component of my faith involved.
I should mention, however, that there are Christian groups who write "non-Christian" (or “secular”) songs. Six Pence None The Richer had that song "Kiss Me" which as 0 to do with God, and yet there is little doubt in anyone's mind that they are a Christian band. They just happened to write a song about romance, not God. No big deal.
Quote:
But I get the feeling from the widely publicized teen-oriented Christian rock concerts that if another theme came up, people would be confused.
This is sort of true, and there' s a good reason for that. When people go to Christian concerts, generally they are going not just to hear a band but to worship or be encouraged in their faith. It's more than a musical experience- it's a time to fellowship with other believers and think upon the things of faith.
But I'd be remiss not to point out that often I go to Christian concerts and they play some secular tunes- the most notable of these being Jars of Clay doing "Girls Just Want to Have Fun", which was truly hilarious. Caedmon's Call also played a couple of secular tunes, one by the Beatles, at the very same concert.
To return back to the reason I play Christian music, I play music because I love music. It's Christian because it's part of who I am and I believe God can use it to encourage other believers. I have to think most artists who sing anything of substance find it the ultimate thrill to know that a song they've sung has touched someone deeply. I'd say this is probably true from Pearl Jam right on down to Michael W. Smith. Routinely after concerts I end up in conversations with people about the songs and they tell me how these have been an great encouragement. There's almost nothing better than this, and that to me is what artistic expression is all about: reaching out and touching people in a way that is beyond words and thoughts: deeply, emotionally, and meaningfully.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234338 - 01/10/2004 20:00
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Your notion that the idea that only occasionally mentioning religion is disingenuous strikes me as coming from a person who doesn't recognize that there are other people who have other aspects to their lives beyond religion.
By the way, I hope I cleared up that this is not what I think at all. I actually resent the movement among some Christians that a song must have the requisite "God, Jesus, Holy Spirit" parts in order for it to be worth listening to. I'm far more interested in music that comes from the heart rather than something which fits a formula. I have many friends who will only listen to Christian music, which is fine for them (though often this begs the question of what IS Christian music), but only about a third of my library is Christian, explicit or not.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234339 - 01/10/2004 20:19
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Sorry I misunderstood.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234340 - 02/10/2004 02:37
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Quote:
I suppose it'd be equally odd if someone played "The Ride of the Valkyries" in a Sunday morning service
Or uncannily appropriate, depending on the sermon.
This sounds suspiciously like rock and or roll!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234341 - 04/10/2004 15:29
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5549
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
The thing that I find reprehensible artistically is that, as an artist, it's your job to inspire thought, and when you choose to limit what you say, you choose to limit your expressiveness. I think that it undercuts the ability to create art. It's like deciding to be an author but refusing to use the letters 'F', 'M', and 'Q'.
I don't look upon it as limiting his expressiveness.
As any writing instructor will tell you, "Write about what you know."
Jeff's songwriting comes from his heart, and is about a subject he knows and loves. I'm guessing he has more to say than he could express in a lifetime, so why should he change his course in order to satisfy somebody else's ideas about artistic integrity?
I don't want to "put words in his mouth" but I am guessing that Jeff's music is done more for his own (very) personal satisfaction than it is for the entertainment/education/?? of others.
Now THAT speaks to me of artistic integrity.
tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234342 - 04/10/2004 19:34
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
True. My point is that I find it hard to believe that you can only ever have one subject, and, assuming that's true, if your music only has one subject, you're intentionally limiting yourself. However, my assumption may be incorrect.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234343 - 05/10/2004 01:30
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
I don't remember what I said the last time you brought this up
Ah, I found that thread -- remember now that it was a letter to United Airlines about their choice of in-flight entertainment that I was referring to.
Bitt pretty much said what I think this smug ditty is implying. Maybe it's overly sensitive of me, but I didn't get past hearing the first verse on the headset before I was grossly insulted:
Her parents never took the young girl to church
Never spoke of His name,
Never read her His word.
Two non-believers walking lost in this world,
First he points out what we/I am missing (His deity) and then pretty conclusively says we are all lost. How anyone (as did several people on that other BBS) can escape that conclusion is beyond me.
There are times when I wonder if I am as insulting to various believers, but I cut myself some slack as the noisy minority position (and I don't go door to door!)
An interesting essay on NPR this evening by "religion commentator" Gustav Niebuhr (ah, bio here). The essay hit a couple of interesting points. The first was a pointer to the not-very-widely-remembered Robert Ingersoll and then went on to suggest what a boon it might be for the 2 main parties to court the votes of various agnostics, atheists, secular humanists and such.
I was interested in the essay, but I am thinking his notion of atheists as undecided/swing voters is pretty poorly conceived. Maybe Bush can get some agnostic votes, but I am going to guess that the more comfortable somebody is with not holding a belief in some deity, the more nervous a candidate with strong ties to an evangelical constituency is going to make them.
I will say I often get ticked off at the various attempts to estimate the prevalence of the different non-theist positions. Niebuhr said something like "only 1 to 3 percent of Americans are willing to say that they are atheists". OK, and are these so-called "strong" atheists? What I'd like to know one day is what percentage of people in the US are functionally (weak) atheists in terms of their beliefs (yes, let's count all of the agnostics who can't bear to say "atheist"!)
On a Blue/Red state tangent, I can say that I went to *eastern* washington on Saturday to work a rally. Lots of Bush/Cheney signs. On the main drag in Cle Elum, I looked up to see the sign for a local garage. Can't remember their name, but right below the name and right above the shop's phone was the familiar Christian fish... right next to the "ASE certified mechanic" logo.
I needed a 9 volt battery for my checkpoint clock, so I stopped at a Radio Shack on the main drag that also serves as a video store. They had just gotten Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD, but hadn't put it in the computer so were having a hard time checking it out to a woman who showed up to claim it. I asked "How's that going?" She said, "Oh, we got a waiting list." So even in the red part of our blue state, somebody is renting DVDs by heretics.
Sheesh, I think I am all out of free association!
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234344 - 05/10/2004 07:51
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
First he points out what we/I am missing (His deity) and then pretty conclusively says we are all lost.
So is it that the song refers to you (and anyone else who doesn't hold to Christian beliefs) as "lost" that you find offensive?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234345 - 05/10/2004 08:10
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I don't want to "put words in his mouth" but I am guessing that Jeff's music is done more for his own (very) personal satisfaction than it is for the entertainment/education/?? of others.
Yes. While I do believe the music can be of benefit to other Christians as an encouragement, it is first and formost very personal expression. Having said that I must admit that my very first "Christian" songs were awful precisouly for the reasons Bitt is charing: I was putting words down that fit a certain mold of what I thought was expected, but they were very cold and distant- my attitude was that if I was going to write music, it had to be "for God". It wasn't until I had a conversation with a friend (who now is a full time Christian musician) who told me I should write about what I felt regardless of whether every word was about God or not (I remember him saying "if you are inspired to write a song about a flower, write about a flower- don't force it to relate back to Christ if that's not what moved you") that I started writing stuff that was an honest expression of who I am. It just so happens that just about all of it fits the mold of Christian music without my trying. Hearing my friends music today I'd say the same is true of him as well, though one of the other songwriters in his band has written about a dozen songs about the same girl he didn't end up marrying!
But I really didn't mean for this thread to become about myself and the music I've written. I'm really interested in what people find offensive or is a big turn off toward Christians and Christian music. There are always bound to be differences of beliefs that cannot be overcome whenver anyone talks about personal beliefs, but I'd rather those differences not occur because of the way I present them.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234346 - 05/10/2004 11:36
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
So is it that the song refers to you (and anyone else who doesn't hold to Christian beliefs) as "lost" that you find offensive?
Yes, "walking lost in the world". That would be enough, but then he manages to imply, as Bitt points out, that we are dissolute, drug-abusing child abusers.... I have forgotten who the songwriter is. I looked him up at one point, didn't find much.
If ever there was recent anthem for skeptics/nonbelievers, I'd have to guess that it was XTC's "Dear God". It got a fair amount of airplay. IIRC, some believers made a point of how offended they were. Not sure if United included it in their in-flight entertainment....but I don't think so!
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234347 - 05/10/2004 14:47
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
If ever there was recent anthem for skeptics/nonbelievers, I'd have to guess that it was XTC's "Dear God".
One of my faves (parody here), but it only covers the side of the discussion that Believers have a pre-scripted answer for. Basically, the song says, "there's so much suffering in the world, therefore God must not exist, or even if he does, he clearly doesn't care about us." I'm sure that statement is as offensive to most believers as the "child abuse song" is to atheists.
Being a Rush fan, of course, my personal favorite atheist anthems are their songs "Freewill" and "Roll the Bones", they cover a bit more ground, and aren't as angry or accusing as Dear God. I like the way Neil seems to capture the feeling that many theists don't believe atheists even have at all: that intense appreciation and respect for all life, in this life, here and now, because it's our only chance at it.
Each of us, a cell of awareness,
imperfect and incomplete.
Genetic blends, with uncertain ends,
on a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234348 - 05/10/2004 20:05
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Yes, "walking lost in the world".
Unfortunately, the word "lost" is pretty ingrained in Christian lingo as it's used in the bible often to mean those who are not followers of Christ. Today it's pretty much used interchangably with "non-believers" and "non-Christians". I understand how the term can sound condescending, but the context in the bible is one of God rejoicing when someone who is "lost" has returned to Him.
Like the word "saved", it seems that the word "lost" is a big turn off to non-Christians, and I'm not sure whether that's because of what the word represents or how it's been used. Probably the latter, which is why I think Christians have to be careful in how they phrase things, even if the word has biblical roots.
Quote:
That would be enough, but then he manages to imply, as Bitt points out, that we are dissolute, drug-abusing child abusers....
Once again, I'd have never gotten that from the song without hearing your perspective and I'm willing to bet it's not at all what the author intendend. Even at that, the author is still responsible for how the words can come accross. On the flip side of this, it seems to me that more often than not when a spiritual person (priests especially) appear in movies they are portrayed as amoral and power hungry. Though this can be irritating, I think the reason for this is not because filmmakers find all spirtual leaders to be amoral and power hungry, but because we love to watch movies about hypocracy. I think the portrayal is because of the story and not too much should be read into it. At least that's my take.
Quote:
If ever there was recent anthem for skeptics/nonbelievers, I'd have to guess that it was XTC's "Dear God". It got a fair amount of airplay. IIRC, some believers made a point of how offended they were.
Never have heard it, but I just looked up the lyrics. I'm not offended, but I probably won't be picking up the CD any time soon, which I'm sure you can understand. I have a feeling that true and blatent "anti-God" stuff is as hard to get on the radio as true and blatent Christian music, though it does happen ("I Can Only Imagine" being the most recent example I know of).
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234349 - 05/10/2004 20:22
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Being a Rush fan, of course, my personal favorite atheist anthems are their songs "Freewill" and "Roll the Bones", they cover a bit more ground, and aren't as angry or accusing as Dear God.
Neither of these song are offensive to me even though I profoundly disagree with their ideas, and I think "Freewill" has a lot to offer even from it's atheistic perspective. It talks about the responsibility of choosing belief, something believers and atheists should both take to heart.
What I love about Rush, though, is precisely what you've said. They aren't angry or accusing at all, nor do they paint believers with a broad brush. They don't come across like they have an axe to grind, but that they are exploring how they see the world and are inviting you to explore it with them. I have spent a lot of time contemplating the things they sing about; I just happen to have reached different conclusions.
Quote:
I like the way Neil seems to capture the feeling that many theists don't believe atheists even have at all: that intense appreciation and respect for all life, in this life, here and now, because it's our only chance at it.
He does, and even while I disagree with his premise, I certainly appreciate his ability to articulate this.
I know a lot of people write off Peart as pretentious, but I think if more people penned lyrics like he has, music could be a much more impacting medium. I also think he has the near-unique ability to not care much what his critics think of him, and that's probably what allows him to be so free with his lyrics and not feel like he has to shoot down his "enemies".
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234350 - 05/10/2004 20:36
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I know a lot of people write off Peart as pretentious
I see where they're coming from when they say that, but for me, it's more like his lyrics are too technical, too analytical in most cases. They're not so much poetry as they are op-ed pieces that happen to rhyme. Credit where due, though, they are always carefully crafted, and brilliantly phrased. And every once in a while, he can make something that's both analytical and poetically beautiful at the same time.
It's funny, when Geddy came out with his solo album, I wondered what his lyrics would be like, and lo and behold, they sound just like Neil. I guess singing someone else's words for 20+ years would tend to influence you.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234351 - 06/10/2004 11:53
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Not to second guess the lyricist, but it would have been just as easy to write a lyric about a pair of drug-abusing parents who went to church each Sunday and when the girl got to her new family, she got to express that she was always glad about Jesus, despite the fact that the rest of her life was terrible, or maybe that she was scared about losing Jesus along with her bad parents, or something like that. At some point, there was a specific choice to make the bad parents not be churchgoers. Whether that was for the payoff or because of some prejudice against atheists I cannot judge, nor can anyone. But appearance means a lot. What if, instead of atheists, the bad parents had been identified as black? Yup, that poor girl with her crack-smoking black parents.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234352 - 06/10/2004 13:36
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
would have been just as easy to write a lyric about a pair of drug-abusing parents who went to church each Sunday and when the girl got to her new family, she got to express that she was always glad about Jesus, despite the fact that the rest of her life was terrible, or maybe that she was scared about losing Jesus along with her bad parents, or something like that.
Well yes, but then that defeats the whole "ahh, how sweet" effect that she'd known Jesus outside of church. In fact, I believe that's the point of the song: that Jesus exists in the real world and is not just confined to the church.Quote:
What if, instead of atheists, the bad parents had been identified as black?
Well that would not have really served the story by giving the girl a reason not to have been to church. It would have definitely been offensive, though.
I do get your point, however. The coupling of the athiest parents (though I'm sure "athiest" is a bit strong- perhaps non-churchgoers is all we can assume) with negative behavior makes it feel like the writer is painting with broad strokes. As I was trying to say earlier, sometimes that's the way I feel about how religious people are portrayed in movies. But I generally try to give the writer the benefit of the doubt.
In the end, though, I'm really playing more of a devil's advocate here. I really don't care for the song much, nor do I think it's a shining example of Christian music.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234353 - 06/10/2004 14:24
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
devil's advocate
Ha!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234354 - 06/10/2004 14:35
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
I knew you'd like that.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234355 - 06/10/2004 15:01
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I take it that your interpretation of the song is that the child had never been exposed to Jesus anywhere at all before seeing a crucifix (or whatever) in the church when her adoptive parents took her and that the crux of the story is that she magically knew who Jesus was without any stimulus, therefore "proving" that God exists.
Which is not what I took from it. It's hard to go through life in the US without being inundated with Jesus. I suppose as a child it may be fairly easy to not know what he represents, but you're still going to be familiar with the imagery. After all, he's almost always portrayed as a white guy with flowing hair and a beard, usually brown, wearing robes and sandals. Not exactly a common image otherwise. So the fact that she would recognize the image doesn't really mean anything to me. And that makes the song terribly bland from the "aww, cute" point of view and leaves any emotional impact with the hateful representation of the bad parents. The new parents are fairly blandly represented as giving hugs and going to church, where the song expends a lot of words (relative to the length of the lyrics) detailing how the bad parents were bad.
Actually, rereading the lyrics to check my facts, I see that I somehow missed that last stanza. So, to some extent, at least, nevermind. Cute story, definitely.
Actually, it's interesting to note that the song never states that the new parents attend church, either. It implies it, since the girl goes, but it never says that the new parents went or that they specifically sent her. (Picking nits, I know.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234356 - 06/10/2004 15:13
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Which is not what I took from it.
It is what I took from it, though. Just to provide a contrary opinion.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234357 - 06/10/2004 15:28
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Quote:
devil's advocate
Ha!
I hear that was a great pinball game....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234358 - 06/10/2004 16:14
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
But here's where I'll be a prick.... Cheney never met Edwards, eh? Is lying a Christian value? My education must have left it out; Given that I didn't play hooky, I wonder if we got that lesson while I was in the bathroom or something.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234359 - 06/10/2004 16:35
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Cheney never met Edwards, eh? Is lying a Christian value?
No, but simply forgetting whether you've met a particular senator, when you meet so many of them and they start to all look the same to you, isn't un-Christian.
As much as I'd like to nail Cheney on that one, I'm sure it was just an honest mistake.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234360 - 06/10/2004 16:46
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I'm not sure about that. He knew he was going to say that. He could have taken ten minutes to verify that he'd never met him, or had his speech writer or some other staffer do it, just like he got that same staffer to look up the fact that hos hometown newspaper refers to him as "Mr. Gone" (or whatever it was). He deliberately made that up for rhetoric. And the fact of the matter is that no matter how few people actually watch the debates, even fewer follow up on them, so the point will stick. It's a good sound bite on how Edwards is (admittedly) at the Senate meetings less often than he should be.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234361 - 06/10/2004 16:49
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Quote:
Cheney never met Edwards, eh? Is lying a Christian value?
No, but simply forgetting whether you've met a particular senator, when you meet so many of them and they start to all look the same to you, isn't un-Christian.
How could you forget this fresh-faced guy? Seriously, he looks like someone whose soul should have been crushed already, and yet...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234362 - 06/10/2004 16:52
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234363 - 06/10/2004 17:00
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
As much as I'd like to nail Cheney on that one, I'm sure it was just an honest mistake.
No, not an honest mistake, just being a politician. He damned well remembered his meeting(s) with Edwards (there are only 100 senators, after all) and he's not senile. It was just much more effective to say he never met him in his speech, since most who heard his words aren't going to read the follow-up stories about how they really did meet.
That being said, I'm not sure I could make a call between which ticket is distorting the truth more than the other... Bush/Cheney didn't invent distorting the truth, but this is a clear example of just that.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234364 - 06/10/2004 17:03
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
That being said, I'm not sure I could make a call between which ticket is distorting the truth more than the other... Bush/Cheney didn't invent distorting the truth, but this is a clear example of just that.
the Bush camp's claims seem to get more notice, so it appears they are, but that's probably not actually true.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
