Did anyone see the Frontline Special on PBS on President Bush?

[The Afoci]

I was watching that lastnight, (might be switching jobs, so I have to stay clean to ensure I can pass a piss test, so life gets boring sometimes ;) ) and noticed one thing that I found very shocking. When speaking about his religion and God, President Bush is a very effective speaker. He has no stutter, he is extremely confident and speaks with a passion which I found amazing considering all the sound bites you hear from him.

Umm. I guess I really got nothing, but wonder if anyone else noticed that at all.

[rkmsuf]

Heard bits and pieces of it. The ones I heard made him sound like a lunatic.

[yabanci]

I thought he sounded like an absolute lunatic too.

[Young Drachma]

I caught the tail end of it and yes, I agree.

[The Afoci]

I am not talking about what he said, because it was obvious that he was playing towards the groups he was speaking to at the time, highly religous right wingers, but more about the manner in which he spoke. Instead of stumbling around, he was very clear, confident and highly effective in his presentation.

[Fonzie]

I am not talking about what he said, because it was obvious that he was playing towards the groups he was speaking to at the time, highly religous right wingers, but more about the manner in which he spoke. Instead of stumbling around, he was very clear, confident and highly effective in his presentation.

Perhaps he was possessed?

[Franklinnoble]

Perhaps he was possessed?
Convicted by the Holy Spirit is more like it...

[Fonzie]

Convicted by the Holy Spirit is more like it...

Ah...convicted of possession makes more sense. ;)

[yabanci]

an articulate lunatic possessed by spirits. That's reassuring.

[Franklinnoble]

1 Corinthinans 12:3 - Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Ephesians 1:¹² That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
¹³ In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
¹⁴ Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
¹⁵ Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
¹⁶ Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
¹⁷ That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

[Tasan]

And besides any other religious discussion, did you really thing a profile by a liberal outlet would have portrayed him in any other way?

[rkmsuf]

well whatever but in no context are some of those clips non lunatic-like.

[Butter]

Hey, you know I have a copy of the Bible at home Franklinnoble? Some people on here seem to think that others have problems thinking of appropriate sections at the right time or something.

[CamEdwards]

Hey, you know I have a copy of the Bible at home Franklinnoble? Some people on here seem to think that others have problems thinking of appropriate sections at the right time or something.

I've got left-wing numskulls in my family... but I still post here.

[Butter]

I may have been born yesterday but I still went shopping.

[Franklinnoble]

I may need mental therapy, but I still eat Klondike bars.

[BishopMVP]

When speaking about his religion and God, President Bush is a very effective speaker. He has no stutter, he is extremely confident and speaks with a passion which I found amazing considering all the sound bites you hear from him.I guess this thread has been jacked, but on the original point, it seems if Bush really does believe in something and isn't trying to spout some pre-determined political sound bite, he does quite well. He's also good at giving speeches, but terrible at Q&A sessions where he is required to think on his feet and fit in the sound bite.

[AgustusM]

or maybe we have become so polarized as a society that the automatic reactions are:

liberal watching Bush do anything = liar, scoundrel,worst president ever
conservative watching Bush = Solid Leader, Unfairly criticized, Just what we need right now.

Of course feel free to replace the words Bush with Clinton or Kerry (with the obvious reversals of Liberal/Conservative)

I forget who said it - but these days I am leaning towards this philosophy: Democracy is the worst form of government, which puts it ahead of all the others.

[Leonidas]

I forget who said it - but these days I am leaning towards this philosophy: Democracy is the worst form of government, which puts it ahead of all the others.

Actually I believe the quote was "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other government out there." I seem to think it might have been Will Rogers or Mark Twain, but I certainly could be wrong.

[WussGawd]

I think that anyone who sends men to die in a foreign land based on a lie (WMD), and then claims to be God's chosen instrument in doing so (or words to that effect), is little more than a blasphemer.

Based on my hazy recollections of reading the Bible in my teen years, I don't recall the portion where Jesus suggests that wars of naked aggression are ok, and callously ignoring or doing worse to the poor and elderly while polluting the environment are encouraged.

Didn't see the special last night, but I will probably dredge it up on PBS' archive, as I meant to.

[BishopMVP]

I think that anyone who sends men to die in a foreign land based on a lie (WMD),:rolleyes: (Sorry for the off-the-cuff response, but everyone thought he had them and we have found multiple violations of the UN resolulutions)

[stevew]

:rolleyes: (Sorry for the off-the-cuff response, but everyone thought he had them and we have found multiple violations of the UN resolulutions)

Dont you know that WMD are the only important thing. Fuck the people living under tyranny, the open air weapons markets and terrorist training facilities. Fuck the multiple violations of UN law. Its ALL about the WMD
:rolleyes:

[WussGawd]

:rolleyes: (Sorry for the off-the-cuff response, but everyone thought he had them and we have found multiple violations of the UN resolulutions)

Regarding the first, "everybody" is a bit of a stretch. There were a few folks out there who were questioning the claims, Scott Ritter for starters, Blix, for another. I will agree that Clinton was convinced as of 1998 that he had them (and said so in the run up to the war).

The facts are that Chalabi and his cronies were lying through his a** about the state of Iraqi weapons programs, thus misleading both administrations. Of course, if we'd given Blix a chance to continue inspections, we'd have learned, soon enough, that they didn't exist. Blix was pretty well convinced of this when he was ordered out, IIRC.

In any case, the Bush administration insisted there were WMDs after the start of the war until well after any such claims had been discredited. Even David Kay is saying this at this point.

I think the truth is that Saddam didn't even know he didn't have them. I suspect he had men telling him what he wanted to hear. I think the arms embargoes did, for the most part work. Saddam's army was in poor shape, lacking spare parts, with weapons systems down. It stands to reason he'd have had a similar hard time acquiring the equipment to build much in the NBC area.

[WussGawd]

Dont you know that WMD are the only important thing. Fuck the people living under tyranny, the open air weapons markets and terrorist training facilities. Fuck the multiple violations of UN law. Its ALL about the WMD
:rolleyes:

Puh-lease. We stood idly by and watched a million people get offed in Rwanda, Republicans and Democrats. When Clinton insisted on intervening in Bosnia and Kosovo to prevent "ethnic cleansing", the Republicans were singing like a Greek chorus in opposition to the intervention. For that matter, we haven't said a peep about one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet in Saudi Arabia (which was home to 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers).

The WMD argument was more convincing than the Republicans suddenly getting religion about liberating the Iraqi people. We heard very little of this argument until after the fact, when it became apparent that the WMD argument was leaking water faster than a sieve.

There are still open air weapons markets, genocidal killings and training camps in the Sudan. Why aren't we doing anything there?

[Axxon]

Dont you know that WMD are the only important thing. Fuck the people living under tyranny, the open air weapons markets and terrorist training facilities. Fuck the multiple violations of UN law. Its ALL about the WMD
:rolleyes:

Steve. All of that shit has existed since time began. It has. So why now? Why us? Where was our mandate?? It was in the WMD's silly and those didn't exist.

Therein lies the problem. Not the problem itself as you so clearly outlined but we aren't really addressing that. Never have been. I'm pissed because of the reaction to a nonevident problem.If the reaction doesn't fit the problem then which one is suspect?? I'd say the reaction. If you had proof we'd ever really taken UN law or tyranny seriously then that would be one thing. We haven't so it's bullshit.

You have a poltical agende therefore you state there is a problem. Now, because it makes your party seem legitimate. Can you get any lower???

Therein lies the difference. Enjoy your politics dude. People are dying because you believe like you do. Not because the world is like it's always been which is pretty shitty.

No, because YOU want them to die to prove YOUR politics. You need blood to make your point have a meaning that it doesn't have so kill those who aren't like us. . Rah Rah, all our enemies die.

No one has ever addressed the issues though, and we damned sure aren't going to start now. We'll just shed more blood. Not yours though, you'd never approve of that. You are below contempt.

THAT is the difference. I hope you're having fun. I'm not, even though I hate people. I wish certain ones died first then maybe I could support what's left.

[Axxon]

Oh and back on topic, so what if the president is confident in his religous beliefs? That's a lot easier to do than being confident in being the leader of the strongest country in the world.

I'm not amongst those who find fault when he shows confusion there. It's a confusing state of world affairs and the more he expresses that the more I know he's taking it seriously.

It's not hard to memorize a party line or party arguments. It's very hard to make those your own and try and defend them.

When he struggles to do that, I see someone who is at least trying. I don't fault him for that, I admire that. It's just that he keeps jumping to the wrong conclusions all the time. :)

[stevew]

Steve. All of that shit has existed since time began. It has. So why now? Why us? Where was our mandate?? It was in the WMD's silly and those didn't exist.

Therein lies the problem. Not the problem itself as you so clearly outlined but we aren't really addressing that. Never have been. I'm pissed because of the reaction to a nonevident problem.If the reaction doesn't fit the problem then which one is suspect?? I'd say the reaction. If you had proof we'd ever really taken UN law or tyranny seriously then that would be one thing. We haven't so it's bullshit.

You have a poltical agende therefore you state there is a problem. Now, because it makes your party seem legitimate. Can you get any lower???

Therein lies the difference. Enjoy your politics dude. People are dying because you believe like you do. Not because the world is like it's always been which is pretty shitty.

No, because YOU want them to die to prove YOUR politics. You need blood to make your point have a meaning that it doesn't have so kill those who aren't like us. . Rah Rah, all our enemies die.

No one has ever addressed the issues though, and we damned sure aren't going to start now. We'll just shed more blood. Not yours though, you'd never approve of that. You are below contempt.

THAT is the difference. I hope you're having fun. I'm not, even though I hate people. I wish certain ones died first then maybe I could support what's left.


Dude, I make one half off the cuff statement, and you read all this shit into it? I dont like what goes on over there too. But to just assume all that shit about me? Go fuck yourself.

[Dutch]

You'll have to forgive WussGawd,

He spends way too much time at moveon.org.

I've read that 1 in 10 who visit moveon.org are possessed and don't stutter when they type.

[The Afoci]

To switch topics here a bit, there was one portion of the program based on when he was governor of Texas when he saved a group that rehabilitated drug and alcohol addicts by 'filling the hole in their soul's' with God. It was getting government funds to run but because it wasn't doing what is considered the normal method for rehab. He was able to save it because that is how he was able to kick his drinking addictions (drugs perhaps too, but that wasn't covered). He was able to argue that separation of church and state didn't mean the absence of God in government programs. Does anyone know what arguments he used to get the program passed? It didn't go in-depth other than making it sound like he did it shady-like. This is something that has really been interesting to me and I wish I could see the program again. To me, this is the first time I have seen religion have such a huge effect on someone who had so much in terms of money, but wasn't religous his whole life.

[NoMyths]

Puh-lease. We stood idly by and watched a million people get offed in Rwanda, Republicans and Democrats. When Clinton insisted on intervening in Bosnia and Kosovo to prevent "ethnic cleansing", the Republicans were singing like a Greek chorus in opposition to the intervention. For that matter, we haven't said a peep about one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet in Saudi Arabia (which was home to 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers).

The WMD argument was more convincing than the Republicans suddenly getting religion about liberating the Iraqi people. We heard very little of this argument until after the fact, when it became apparent that the WMD argument was leaking water faster than a sieve.

There are still open air weapons markets, genocidal killings and training camps in the Sudan. Why aren't we doing anything there?Nice post, WG.

[WussGawd]

You'll have to forgive WussGawd,

He spends way too much time at moveon.org.

I've read that 1 in 10 who visit moveon.org are possessed and don't stutter when they type.

Actually, Dutch, I've never even visited MoveOn.org.

And what the hell is the difference between MoveOn and the Heritage Foundation, for that matter? Why do Republicans get to have their quaint little "think tanks" but Liberals aren't allowed theirs?

[rexallllsc]

:rolleyes: (Sorry for the off-the-cuff response, but everyone thought he had them and we have found multiple violations of the UN resolulutions)

In that case, let's take out Israel, too...after all, they have double-digit UN violations.

[Axxon]

Dude, I make one half off the cuff statement, and you read all this shit into it? I dont like what goes on over there too. But to just assume all that shit about me? Go fuck yourself.

I make an off the cuff reaction to your off the cuff statement and you tell me to go fuck myself? You go fuck yourself.

There, now isn't that a lively discourse. :)

What's next, I'm rubber you're glue????

:)

[sterlingice]

I guess this thread has been jacked, but on the original point, it seems if Bush really does believe in something and isn't trying to spout some pre-determined political sound bite, he does quite well. He's also good at giving speeches, but terrible at Q&A sessions where he is required to think on his feet and fit in the sound bite.
My thoughts exactly. I'll be the first to get in the "he's a moron" line but some of that perception isn't his fault. It's not like any one person in this country who can get elected will be a wonderful scholar in economics, environmentalism, legal theory, military studies, etc, so frequently he's having to just regurgitate what is said to him and he's just not that good of a speaker for that. It would be like one of us being forced onto a podium to speak in front of NASA with a prepared speech about rocket science but knowing nothing about it and then have to answer questions about it.

SI

[Dutch]

LOL, there were quite a few times during the last Q&A session with the media where I was telling Bush to just "shut up, already!" He is not nearly as good with dealing with the media as President Clinton was.

[SFL Cat]

I find it disturbing that anyone who has a strong belief in a higher power is automatically labeled a lunatic.

I have found that those who hold such beliefs (Christian and otherwise) are generally more reflective while making important decisions -- especially in relation to how such decisions will affect the lives of others. Materialists on the other hand, generally make decisions that are far more self-serving -- if others happen to benefit, that's PR gravy, if not...well, sh*t happens.

[Dutch]

The media's attempts to portray President Bush as a "lunatic" reminds me of one of Bill O'Reillys Talking Points memo's. This is a few weeks old.

Defining the Elite Media
Some viewers have asked me to explicitly define the fabled elite media. So I will try, with some illustrations and examples.

New York Times reporter Frank Rich continued his attacks on "The Passion of the Christ" movie yesterday.

Even though most who have seen the film, including the head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, believe it is not hateful towards Jews, Rich is smarter than all of us.

According to Mr. Rich, if you see merit in this movie you are a moron, a sadist and/or an anti-Semite.

That is the foundation of the elite media: It knows, you don't.

Their slogan might very well be: We report, you're a dope.

Frank Rich's rantings have now become embarrassing both to him and to The New York Times. I mean disagreement about an issue is one thing; trying to destroy someone like Mel Gibson is quite something else.

The New York Times is ground zero for the elite media, and you would think executives at that paper would understand how detached from American reality it has become. But they do not. In fact, a day before Rich's column, The Times music critic gave thug rapper Ludacris a positive review.

That's right. In the world of The New York Times, Ludacris is good, "The Passion" is bad.

While The Times sets the agenda, the rest of the elite media is comprised of a large number of urban newspapers, urban public radio and PBS. Many think the TV network news operations and Hollywood executives are part of that club, but there is a subtle difference.

Entertainment and TV news operations need you, the folks, to survive. Thus, they are mostly sympathetic to the elites -- and generally follow their lead -- they have to be careful.

Believe me, CBS executives are none-too-pleased about the recent anti-Christian statements made by Andy Rooney and Walter Cronkite.

Likewise, the news magazines like Time and Newsweek sympathize with most of the positions taken by the elite. But they, too, must be cautious -- alienating the public would be death for those publications.

Generally speaking, the elite media believe that the majority -- white Christian Americans -- are prone to oppressing the minority. The elites rightfully point to the civil rights struggle as an example of how the majority hurt a minority until the forces of reason stepped in.

The elites firmly believe that not much has changed in 40 years -- and white Christian Americans must be kept in check or they will violate minority rights.

Thus, when federal judges rule that God must be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, or that the Menorah and Muslim flag can be displayed in New York City public schools but the Nativity scene cannot be -- the elites rejoice, (and consider it) more punishment for the tyrannical majority.

Of course, this kind of thinking leads to gross unfairness.

The pendulum has now swung: It is now the majority that is under siege in this country. Today, the special interests are often the ones doing the oppressing.

It goes without saying that the elite media will almost always favor political candidates that espouse high taxes for the evil rich, higher spending on the poor -- even if the programs are wasteful and ineffective -- and more restrictions on corporations, which the elites feel are oppressors as well.

If you go up against the elite media, it will not be pretty. You will be branded a bigot, racist, anti-Semite, and homophobe; You will be called a fundamentalist and ultra-conservative. Elites don't debate: they attack and marginalize.

We invited Frank Rich on this program tonight, but of course, he declined. Rich typifies how the elites operate. I would be pleased to debate him on the merits of his arguments, but that would be beneath him. In reality, he's a a coward. In his mind, he's enlightened.

Think back eight years ago to when the FOX News Channel did not exist. Outside of The Wall Street Journal, which puts forth a conservative philosophy, the elites had the national information flow pretty much to themselves. No one could stand up to them.

Now, the landscape has changed. While our competitors at CNN and NBC still can't figure out why FOX News has become so popular, it is very simple. We are not the elite media.

For example, we don't feel the 66% of Americans who are against gay marriage are fools and bigots, and we don't think our opinion has more validity than YOUR opinion, no matter what it is. We give voice to all points of view -- including the elite one.

But that doesn't play in the halls of media elitism. The attacks on Mel Gibson by The New York Times and others prove we are now in an age where control of information flow has become a serious war of words.

The elites believe it is them against the howling mob. They are true believers.

And that's the Memo.

http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/general/genericpage.jsp?pageID=83

[WussGawd]

Hmm. Having Bill O'Reilly attest to somebody's sanity would be kind of like having Roman Polanski attest to the parenting skills of Michael Jackson. :D

[Dutch]

Well, I'm sure in your world, only a select few (the liberal media elite) have an opinion that holds any merit whatsover.

[SFL Cat]

Hmm. Having Bill O'Reilly attest to somebody's sanity would be kind of like having Roman Polanski attest to the parenting skills of Michael Jackson. :D

If you go up against the elite media, it will not be pretty. You will be branded a bigot, racist, anti-Semite, and homophobe; You will be called a fundamentalist and ultra-conservative. Elites don't debate: they attack and marginalize.

Hmmmmmmmmm....

[WussGawd]

Well, I'm sure in your world, only a select few (the liberal media elite) have an opinion that holds any merit whatsover.

There are conservative commentators I have no problem listening to. I may not agree with them on all things, but I'll listen to them.

O'Reilly? Nothing but an arrogant snot-nosed punk who can only shout down those who disagree with them. Although I wouldn't go out of my way to listen to any of them, I'd rather listen to Limbaugh or Liddy any day out of the week than O'Reilly.

[Dutch]

Nothing but an arrogant snot-nosed punk who can only shout down those who disagree with them.

Now does this really describe Bill O'Reilly.........or you?

:D

[WussGawd]

Hmmmmmmmmm....

Of course, O'Reilly's statement as quoted, marginalizes and attacks liberals. So much for he who is without sin casting the first stone.

And memo to Bill O'Reilly...YOU ARE A PART OF THE MEDIA ELITE, YOU POMPOUS A**. :mad:

SFL, I'd like to thank you for comparing me to the media elite. I didn't even know I was part of the media, and my wife certainly will be surprised to learn that we're part of the elite. :)

[WussGawd]

Now does this really describe Bill O'Reilly.........or you?

:D

Probably both...but I don't pretend to be the reasonable defender of truth and justice that O'Reilly does. Therefore, I'm not a hypocrite.

[WussGawd]

In that case, let's take out Israel, too...after all, they have double-digit UN violations.

Which has always led me to wonder exactly why we maintain such close ties to Israel, considering how much it aggravates *everybody else* in the region.

[SFL Cat]

I was concentrating more on the "attack and marginalize" part rather than being part of the media. Obviously, you don't have to be part of the media to consider youself an intellectual elite.

[Butter]

Well, I'm sure in your world, only a select few (the liberal media elite) have an opinion that holds any merit whatsover.

Dude, the 90's are over. The media reporting the odd story about homosexuality doesn't make them liberal.

[Dutch]

That last one would be an elite media clone "marginalizing" :D