Sen. Zell Miller (Democrat) Praises Bush at RNC

[Stelliform]

While Miller may have blasted George Bush the father, he's a strong supporter of George Bush the son.

"I want a man that will take the fight to the terrorists and fight it out on the other side of the world, not wait until they attack us here at home again," Miller says.
...

The Democratic Party today has gone further and further to the left. It's left me, it's left moderates and it's left a lot of people who want to support a strong commander in chief," Miller says.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/01/zell.miller/index.html

This should be a major concern for the Dems, have they gone too left?

[alexf]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/01/zell.miller/index.html

This should be a major concern for the Dems, have they gone too left?

Too far left? Are you kidding?

If they went one more inch to the right they would be Republicans...

Democracy is essentially dead in America. How can it function in a one party system?

[mactastic]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/01/zell.miller/index.html

This should be a major concern for the Dems, have they gone too left?

No the country has moved right. Clinton, who is considered a liberal devil by much of the right, was actually quite moderate. Bush, who claims to be a moderate, is actually quite conservative.

Zell Miller might as well switch parties. While I'm sure he's only doing what he feels will keep his constituents happy (he's a Dem from a conservative state), he is doing a grave disservice to his party by endorsing the opposition candidate while still remaining in the party. Just jump ship already if that's how you feel. Stop calling yourself a Democrat if you aren't one.

Were the Republicans happy with Jim Jeffords when he switched? Were they saying nice things about him then?

[Leo Hubbard]

Socialism is a far left ideal. Socialism is slowly becoming the center of the Democrat party. They are moving left not right, they are moving so far left that centrist is moving into the Republican party. The Republican party also is moving left so that people truly on the right are now considered extremists. People who think they should keep their own hard earned money are considered extremists. People who think that the government should be limited to the constitutions are now considered extremists. People who want the right to bear arms are now considered extremists. These are all philosophies that use to be considered centrist only a few decades ago.

[IJ Reilly]

Zell Miller, one of the nation's more prominent political flip-floppers. Interesting choice to highlight at the RNC.

[mactastic]

Sounds like Leo is arguing that the country has moved to the left since the 60's. :D

Care to rethink that one buddy?

[takao]

Socialism is a far left ideal. Socialism is slowly becoming the center of the Democrat party. They are moving left not right, they are moving so far left that centrist is moving into the Republican party. The Republican party also is moving left so that people truly on the right are now considered extremists. People who think they should keep their own hard earned money are considered extremists. People who think that the government should be limited to the constitutions are now considered extremists. People who want the right to bear arms are now considered extremists. These are all philosophies that use to be considered centrist only a few decades ago.

do you call the "we need a strong leader who does what's need to be done regardless of public opinion" speaches at the RNC "centric" as well ?

[Thomas Veil]

As I write this, Zell Miller is having a major big-time meltdown while being interviewed by Chris Matthews on MS-NBC. Under pointed questioning, Miller told Matthews to "get out of my face!" and "I wish we lived in past times so I could challenge you to a duel!"

Matthews, the panel and the crowd of protesters are loving it. They're cracking up watching Miller lose it.

:D :D :D

[Thomas Veil]

And here it is (http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/movies/ZellMillerMeltdown.mov). (5.5 MB)

What a jackass. :p

[zimv20]

wow. all mr. matthews was doing was asking for senator miller to clarify some parts of his specch.

to paraphrase, i wish we lived in the days when two men could question each others' views without it becoming a shouting match.

[Thanatoast]

Did anybody see his speech? Holy crap. He was like a rabid dog. They shoulda put a warning on before showing it, "may not be suitable for young viewers".

I liked the question, "do you really think John Kerry wants to defend the country with spitballs?" I think a better way to put it might have been, "The Republicans are running on a theme of 'Kerry wants your children to die'. Since this is a patently ridiculous statement, how do you defend yourself?" This is the boiled down message of the entire Bush campaign. Bush will keep you safe, Kerry wants the terrorists to win. Is this not a stupid statement?

On an unrelated note, I watched Bill Maher tonight, and he had the standard conservative guest on his show. (He really should put two of them on together, cause having just the one versus three liberals looks mean, even though they deserve it.) But the conservative guest tonight, a Republican House Representative, was sitting there denying reality! He said that the idea of the Iraq war inflaming passions against the US was a bunch of hooey. !!! How can you debate someone who says the sky isn't blue?

[Krizoitz]

Did anybody see his speech? Holy crap. He was like a rabid dog. They shoulda put a warning on before showing it, "may not be suitable for young viewers".

I think a better way to put it might have been, "The Republicans are running on a theme of 'Kerry wants your children to die'. Since this is a patently ridiculous statement, how do you defend yourself?" This is the boiled down message of the entire Bush campaign. Bush will keep you safe, Kerry wants the terrorists to win. Is this not a stupid statement?


This was a terribly frightening speech. It furthered the Republicans continuing message that to disagree is to be un-patriotic and un-American. It reeks of McCarthyism on a whole new level.

Now I realize that comparisons to Hitler are probably the most abused and overused in political discussions, but this guys speech seriously reminded me of the old videos of Adolf in his speeches.

[ocellnuri]

Now I realize that comparisons to Hitler are probably the most abused and overused in political discussions, but this guys speech seriously reminded me of the old videos of Adolf in his speeches.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/01/gop.main/top.miller.ap.jpg

[Krizoitz]

And now some responses to some quotes from his speech:

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.
Here he seems to miss the point that the reason our young Americans are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan is because we didn't finish our job in Afghanistan before moving the bulk of our forces to Iraq, and we didn't have a plan in place to deal with Iraq once we had toppled Sadaam.
In adition he reiterates the absurd notion that dissension makes our nation weaker. Not to mention his rather outlandish claim that Kerry has some sort of Manic-Obsessisve desire to bring down Bush? I admit Kerry is probably no big fan of GW, but I have seen no evidence of this kind of behavior from him. On the contrary it seems that Bush with the help of Rove has the obsesion with bringing people down, first McCain and now Kerry. Kerry's campaign has been focused on what Kerry thinks. Bush's campaign and the speeches of this convention have focused more on discrediting Kerry than actually making a strong argument for why Bush should stay President.
Who is the one with the manic-obsession? Here's a hint, its not Kerry.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Given that those countries had been occupied by a foreign power which we along with their own armies and governments helped remove yes we were liberators. We were liberators in Quwait. In Iraq, whatever good intentions we might have we invaded and have occupied their country.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Why don't we ask them how much they appreciate our behavior towards North Korea now? Bush's declaring them part of an axis of evil and his other diplomatic mishandling is leading an increasing number of South Koreans to feel that reunification and peace efforts with their Northern half is being hindered by the US's meddling in what they feel is Korean affairs.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

I really really don't like this image because once again we are painting protestors in some sort of negative image, reinforcing this right wing idea that dissension is un-American.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.
How dare John Kerry feel that our troops are being used improperly. I think that no one should dare being Commander in Chief if he is going to use our military in such a haphazard fashion as Bush has done.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.
There is a big difference between wanting to work with the UN and refusing to do anything without the UN. I'd like to see Zell present proof that Kerry has said he won't ever use military force unless its approved by the UN.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.
This is one of the biggest things that has bothered me about the Republican smear campaign. This idea that Kerry's protest of the war was aimed at the soldiers and not the leaders. Like many protestors he wanted to bring our troops home because he felt their lives were being needlessly put at risk in a poorly planned, poorly supported war. Thats a far cry from blaming our whole military.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.
What friends?!?! Bush has managed to make America look WORSE to the international community in the last four years, not better. You don't get friends by being a bully. If anyone is encouraging our enemies and confusing our friends its the current administration.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter
The same straight shooter who refused to testify under oath before the 9/11 commision?

This election will change forever the course of history
Finally something I can agree with Zell on. Unfortunately for him , if we re-elect King George I see us heading down a darker path than this country has ever seen.

This was a frightening speech and exemplified in every way the reason why I am scared and appaled by the Republican party as it stands today.
God Bless this country indeed, this November we are going to need all the blessings he can give us to avoid a terrible fate.

[mypantsaretight]

Socialism is a far left ideal. Socialism is slowly becoming the center of the Democrat party. They are moving left not right, they are moving so far left that centrist is moving into the Republican party. The Republican party also is moving left so that people truly on the right are now considered extremists. People who think they should keep their own hard earned money are considered extremists. People who think that the government should be limited to the constitutions are now considered extremists. People who want the right to bear arms are now considered extremists. These are all philosophies that use to be considered centrist only a few decades ago.

That you can even equate anything supported by either party with anything even remotely approaching socialism is perhaps the most absurd leap of pseudo-intellectual reasoning that I have read in a while. To bad there's not some big reference that is easily accessible from a computer via a simple search mechanism when you need it. Someone out to make something like that.

I am no Democrat and so I'll stick to your Republican thoughts, and since you're so hung up on a literal interpretation of the Constitution let's use that document as a primary reference.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says nothing about assault weapons or waiting periods or background checks. Nothing. So how exactly are those policies advocated by gun control activists unconstitutional. Of course, this steps around the larger question of the simple fact that outside of a militia the Second Amendment holds in it no guarantee of a right to gun ownership, but now I suppose a literal reading is just pedantic, eh?

I was alive and thinking several decades ago and the notion that everyone on every corner would have the "right" to buy all the heavy weapons of any kind without any controls whatsoever was never a "centrist" position.

As to the give me back my money statement... Under President George the Second we have a nation that can be split by state based on the how much tax revenues they receive as a percentage of how much they pay. What is most interesting about this categorization is that states that are considered blue or Democrat-leaning or liberal receive LESS money than they pay in. For every dollar the liberal states pay in, they get back less than one dollar. Contrast that with states that are red or Republican-leaning or conservative. Those states receive MORE money back than they pay in. For every dollar the conservative states pay in, they get back more than one dollar. Source: IRS, Census Bureau.

It gets even more interesting when you read the breakouts of tax dollars by district as well. On balance, Republican districts receive more than they pay in whereas Democratic districts receive less than they pay in. Source: IRS, Census Bureau.

It has always intrigued me that the "give me back my money" crowd is so angry about paying anything in, but more than happy to collect their share (and half of their neighbor's share) when the handout wagon rolls into town. Fascinating.

I agree that I should be able to keep what I earn. Let's start the process though by passing the hat through the conservative and Republican neighborhoods so that they get first opportunity to pay back the years of government welfare that their states and districts have been receiving. You want to keep your money? Fine, give me back mine first.

m

edit: spelling in a few places

[mypantsaretight]

Sounds like Leo is arguing that the country has moved to the left since the 60's. :D

Care to rethink that one buddy?

Nah, he just got ahold of Republican talking points. Better would have been:

Liberal. Liberal. Liberal. Socialist. Liberal. Socialist. Liberal. Socialist. Socialist. Socialist. Good 'ol Days. Good 'ol Days. Guns. Guns. Guns. Money. Money Money.

I think that paraphrases it just about right.

He could then start doing things like they do on the floor of the British House of Commons.

Us: Number 4.
Them: I refer my right honorable friend to the reply I gave so moments ago.



m

[IJ Reilly]

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Zell, who was president from 1948 to 1952?

[themadchemist]

What frightened me most was Zell's snippet that George W. Bush realizes that "God is not indifferent to America." This kind of hubris and outright linkage of religious sentiment to government shocks and scares me.

[skunk]

Which god?

[Thomas Veil]

Did anybody see his speech? Holy crap. He was like a rabid dog. They shoulda put a warning on before showing it, "may not be suitable for young viewers".
Frankly, I'm surprised that Miller's bizarro act isn't all over the media this morning. Howard Dean was labeled a nut case for going, "Yahhhh!", but nobody notices Miller losing his temper and talking about challenging a reporter to a duel.

The only place it's getting any play at all is on MSNBC's own blog (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/).

But of course, going out-of-control on TV would essentially negate everything that Miller said just an hour or two earlier in front of the cameras at the Republican convention. And we can't have that.

Liberal bias! Liberal bias! ;)

[Taft]

Frankly, I'm surprised that Miller's bizarro act isn't all over the media this morning. Howard Dean was labeled a nut case for going, "Yahhhh!", but nobody notices Miller losing his temper and talking about challenging a reporter to a duel.

The only place it's getting any play at all is on MSNBC's own blog (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/).

But of course, going out-of-control on TV would essentially negate everything that Miller said just an hour or two earlier in front of the cameras at the Republican convention. And we can't have that.

Liberal bias! Liberal bias! ;)

That wink at the end of your post is why Americans are starting to buy the concept that the media is in the pocket of the liberals. To shorten my argument: there are far too many on the right that truly believe the media is biased against them and there are far too few on the left that think the same way.

If you were Leo Hubbard (or apparently BTTM), you would have made this observation, then you would have started a thread on the topic. Then you would have injected this "tidbit" into about fifteen other discussions. Then you would start compiling a list of all such incidents to start proving a total media bias.

The fact that few on the left go so far is scary. The right is filling that gap and brainwashing America with their unproven and unfounded conspiracy theories. After a few more decades this could become one of those "accepted as fact" lies. Scary.

Even though I don't believe in a right (or left) media bias, it almost makes me want to start my own propoganda site to counter the right. Any rational people out there willing to contribute to a bogus "right-wing bias" site?

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

You talking satire here? I'm in.

[mischief]

This could be very entertaining.

I have a lot of material to work with out here in the land of Hemp and Birkenstocks. :D

[IJ Reilly]

And here it is (http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/movies/ZellMillerMeltdown.mov). (5.5 MB)

What a jackass. :p

Oh my. I really want this guy on my side.

[jayb2000]

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/01/gop.main/top.miller.ap.jpg


OK, this is probably NOT work appropriate....
www.spreadingsantorum.com

[skunk]

He certainly has a way with words.

[jayb2000]

Oh, and calling Zell Miller a Democrat is like calling Pat Buchanan a Republican. They are both so far to the right of what they label themselves.
It should be
Miller is Republican and Buchanan is a Facist

[katchow]

good riddance i say :)

republican convention = Grumpy Old Men part 3

[Taft]

You talking satire here? I'm in.

I guess the point is that while in our minds it SHOULD be satire, to be effective in countering the "left-wing bias" crowd, we would have to be deceitful (ie. pretend we really believed in a vast right-wing bias in the media). I just wonder if there is any way to counter the huge amount of propoganda coming from that crowd without resorting to propoganda yourself. I guess I've got a couple of questions for everyone.

1) Do you think the propoganda is currently working? Do you think if people hear "the media has a left-wing bias" enough, they'll believe it?

2) Do you think satire is an effective weapon against such propoganda? Sure, WE think its obvious that their "evidence" is ludicrous, but will satire properly expose it as a farce?

3) If you answered NO to #2, what other methods do we have at our disposal for countering this baseless rhetoric? Talking about statistics and research measures does't usually keep the average citizen engrossed, but that is the only rational way to look at the problem of determining bias.


What I'm proposing is something like a Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/etc/about.html) only more fanatical in their belief of a pervasive right-wing bias in the media. Something like a Media Research Center (http://www.mediaresearch.org/) of the left.

Taft

[mactastic]

Only sites like Media Matters, and Common Cause etc will be considered 'legitimate' news sites. All others will be considered right-wing corporate propaganda whose reports can easily be dismissed out of hand with the charge that 'it's a right-wing corporate controlled medial outlet that is biased'.

The thing I find frightening are the sheer numbers of people who buy this kind of crap.

[jayb2000]

1) Do you think the propoganda is currently working? Do you think if people hear "the media has a left-wing bias" enough, they'll believe it?
....



It worked on WMDs and the non-existent links between Iraq and Al Queda, especially for those folks that only watch Fox Spews.


edit for spelling

[toontra]

It worked on WMDs and the non-existent linke between Iraq and Al Queda, especially for those folks that only watch Fox Spews.

Exactly. If you repeat something often enough, whether it is true or not, it seems a certain percentage of people will believe it. That appears to be the Republican's main strategy.

[Taft]

Only sites like Media Matters, and Common Cause etc will be considered 'legitimate' news sites. All others will be considered right-wing corporate propaganda whose reports can easily be dismissed out of hand with the charge that 'it's a right-wing corporate controlled medial outlet that is biased'.

Now your getting it! :D

And it IS scary.

Taft

[Thomas Veil]

Oh yeah. The radical right puts this stuff out all over the airwaves, and the moderates and the know-nothings are susceptible to it. If Limbaugh and Hannity and that gang keep repeating it, and the far right even buys time on mainstream TV to keep repeating it, it's got to have an effect. Though Hitler comparisons are a no-no on the internet, I feel this one is appropriate: the far right believes strongly in what Goebbels called "the big lie", i.e., if you lie, even if it's outrageous, if you repeat it often enough and loudly enough, people will begin to believe it.


Satire tickles the fancy of the faithful and angers your opponents, but I don't know that it's any more effective a weapon than all those folk songs were back in the '60s. Few people really change their minds because of a satire or a song.


That's a good question. We probably need the equivalent of a "snopes.com" that is strictly for politics. But that's only a start. In our town's public access facility, anyone can challenge a controversial program by filing a complaint. The program is then pulled off the air until the challenge is reviewed by a non-partisan party. If there is nothing libelous, misleading or illegal about the program, it's put back on the air. Otherwise, it's kept off. Sounds like we should be doing something like this with every single political commercial and ad that's out there. Yeah, there'd be challenges left and right, but you'd probably be able to say to the Swifties, for example, "Yes, you can put your ad back on the air...provided you put Kerry's testimony about war crimes back into its proper context." They wouldn't like it, of course; it'd come too close to telling the truth, which would weaken their argument. But truth is the whole point.

[Rower_CPU]

...We probably need the equivalent of a "snopes.com" that is strictly for politics.

Closest I know of is spinsanity (http://spinsanity.com) - they take both sides to task for rhetoric gone awry.

[takao]

1) Do you think the propoganda is currently working? Do you think if people hear "the media has a left-wing bias" enough, they'll believe it?


of course it does..it has been proven that this works (insert good history book of your choice) regardless of society structure and time


2) Do you think satire is an effective weapon against such propoganda? Sure, WE think its obvious that their "evidence" is ludicrous, but will satire properly expose it as a farce?


it's a start..but an effective weapon ? ...i doubt it... (it hasn't really worked in the past)


3) If you answered NO to #2, what other methods do we have at our disposal for countering this baseless rhetoric? Talking about statistics and research measures does't usually keep the average citizen engrossed, but that is the only rational way to look at the problem of determining bias.


education..plain and simple but the important thing is that it has to be _good_ education with of course lots of history lessons ...not only about the abvious things that happend but about the really important backgrounds....how many people know about the things that hitler has done after he got full power ? pretty m uch everybody
how many know how he got into absolute power in the first place ? i've got to learn all that stuff and i'm pretty happy about it ... it's _the_ historic example of media abuse,denoucation,rethoric,spinning facts, and political propaganda

i can't ****ing (excuse expression) stand the RNC ... you know in my head english gets translated into german when i hear it ... and then those catchy phrases get ugly....very ugly...

[IJ Reilly]

What I'm proposing is something like a Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/etc/about.html) only more fanatical in their belief of a pervasive right-wing bias in the media. Something like a Media Research Center (http://www.mediaresearch.org/) of the left.

Satire is difficult and tough to sustain.

It would almost be easier to satirize the right's adoration of propaganda. Or it would be, if it wasn't already so over the top. I mean, how do you satirize Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage?

[Taft]

That's a good question. We probably need the equivalent of a "snopes.com" that is strictly for politics. But that's only a start. In our town's public access facility, anyone can challenge a controversial program by filing a complaint. The program is then pulled off the air until the challenge is reviewed by a non-partisan party. If there is nothing libelous, misleading or illegal about the program, it's put back on the air. Otherwise, it's kept off. Sounds like we should be doing something like this with every single political commercial and ad that's out there. Yeah, there'd be challenges left and right, but you'd probably be able to say to the Swifties, for example, "Yes, you can put your ad back on the air...provided you put Kerry's testimony about war crimes back into its proper context." They wouldn't like it, of course; it'd come too close to telling the truth, which would weaken their argument. But truth is the whole point.


Can you imagine our entire media running that way? The machine would grind to a standstill.

The problem of context is an interesting one. It seems to me that pulling quotes out of context is becoming the new national passtime. But how can you enforce context? Often times, the effect of removing context is that a statement is made more or less forceful, not that the meaning has changed.

This makes it difficult to call shenanigins. If the MEANING hasn't changed, its not a lie, right? I'm not sure how to solve this increasing problem.

Taft

[Taft]

Satire is difficult and tough to sustain.

It would almost be easier to satirize the right's adoration of propaganda. Or it would be, if it wasn't already so over the top. I mean, how do you satirize Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage?

Its tough. Coulter's just a step away from calling for all Democrats to be rounded up as traitors to the country. I've heard neo-nazi's with more moderate positions.

Taft

[Taft]

Closest I know of is spinsanity (http://spinsanity.com) - they take both sides to task for rhetoric gone awry.

I'm a regular reader. Have you ever read the comments on the article's there. On almost EVERY article there, someone is accusing Spinsanity of bias. Why? Because Spinsanity had the audacity to criticize their party of choice.

And there is the crux of the problem: people's definition of bias is so horribly wrong. Saying something bad about one party is not biased so long as a) the criticism is fair and based in fact and b) you are equally critical of the other party when they are worthy of it.

One piece of criticism (or even a few) does not amount to bias. Yet people think it does.

Sorry to disagree with you, takao, but I am much more cynical about education being a method to combat these kinds of propaganda. I just don't think many American have the capacity for it. :(

Taft

[zimv20]

i can't ****ing (excuse expression) stand the RNC ... you know in my head english gets translated into german when i hear it ... and then those catchy phrases get ugly....very ugly...
can you make a list of those phrases? i'd love to see it.

[takao]

can you make a list of those phrases? i'd love to see it.

most important: all this whining about "only a strong leader can pull the country out of problems" strong leader here ... strong leader there
in this all other derivates which i already heard (similiar ones... i haven't rembered all the exact phrases ) "we must follow our leader" "he does whats need to be done regardless of public opinion"
then all this comments about patriotism all over the place (like said before) and the lack of patriotism of the political opposite
comments about "the US needing a stronger military"
all this talking about taking the fight somewhere else etc.
'not giving in,ever'
(and of course the prussian like "god with us" mentality)
etc.
and i've watched only a few minutes of it untill now..

(what's _next_ ? talking about iraq as "clash of cultures" ? or a little bit "leader command, we will follow you" ? or even "work brings freedom" ? or even worse ...if worse is possible)


i've never saw a similiar election campaign over here...

[pseudobrit]

most important: all this whining about "only a strong leader can pull the country out of problems" strong leader here ... strong leader there
in this all other derivates which i already heard (similiar ones... i haven't rembered all the exact phrases ) "we must follow our leader" "he does whats need to be done regardless of public opinion"
then all this comments about patriotism all over the place (like said before) and the lack of patriotism of the political opposite
comments about "the US needing a stronger military"
all this talking about taking the fight somewhere else etc.
'not giving in,ever'
(and of course the prussian like "god with us" mentality)
etc.
and i've watched only a few minutes of it untill now..

(what's _next_ ? talking about iraq as "clash of cultures" ? or a little bit "leader command, we will follow you" ? or even "work brings freedom" ? or even worse ...if worse is possible)


i've never saw a similiar election campaign over here...

I think zim was asking to see the phrases en allemand.

[MattG]

As I write this, Zell Miller is having a major big-time meltdown while being interviewed by Chris Matthews on MS-NBC. Under pointed questioning, Miller told Matthews to "get out of my face!" and "I wish we lived in past times so I could challenge you to a duel!"

Matthews, the panel and the crowd of protesters are loving it. They're cracking up watching Miller lose it.

:D :D :D

I just saw them talking about this guy on the Daily Show. This guy is a LUNATIC.

[Thomas Veil]

Yeah, The Daily Show had a field day with it. Some of the absolute funniest stuff I've ever seen Jon Stewart do. It's repeating at 1:30 a.m. EDT, and I'm taping it for posterity.

Addendum...

Thanks for the link to Spinsanity. Tonight I also ran across another link I'd forgotten about, and this one is excellent: http://www.factcheck.org/ , which is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation. (Check out their motto, derived from Sen. Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." :D )

Elsewhere, I found this (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=mccarter090204) article in The New Republic which sums up the past few nights better than anything else I've seen. (Site requires free registration.)


John Kerry is a spineless Massachusetts liberal. As president, he would raise taxes on farms, families, puppies, and rainbows. He wants to send our boys into combat barefoot, with sticks. Also he puts razors in Halloween candy. John Kerry wets the bed.

This is the general impression left by Wednesday's program at the Republican Convention. Until now, the convention has kept up a mask of jolly inclusiveness. Even the first part of last night's program, "A Land of Opportunity," stuck mostly to the banal pageantry that made Tuesday such a bore: small business extolled, minorities carefully deployed, etc. But the mask would have to drop sooner or later, and last night down it came--revealing the face of the emperor from Return of the Jedi.
And that sums up for me exactly what we saw happen. The mask of hope and optimism fell, and we saw the anger and unreason beneath.

[takao]

I think zim was asking to see the phrases en allemand.

ohh..i guess i miss-understood that
perhaps i should have watched the RNC at all ...too much missudnerstandings there ;)

now after the circus already left the town and the convention-carnivals are over (yesterday i always had to think about the german carnival when watching the RNC....drop the useless conventions andadopt that..looks similiar ,is funny as well and compared to the conventions involves more alcohol...which is an advantage) ... all this talking about it is absolutly useless ... after all it's just carnival ;)

[Taft]

Elsewhere, I found this (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=mccarter090204) article in The New Republic which sums up the past few nights better than anything else I've seen. (Site requires free registration.)
...
And that sums up for me exactly what we saw happen. The mask of hope and optimism fell, and we saw the anger and unreason beneath.

Great op-ed on the whole mess.

Did anyone else notice the start difference in tone between the DNC and the RNC? Even excluding Miller, many others were decidedly on the attack in their speeches. By comparison the Democratic convention seemed tame in their criticism.

I wonder if this is going to be good or bad for the GOP. This kind of blatant attack has been known to backfire. Time will tell, I guess.

Taft

[Thomas Veil]

Well, the criticism of Democratic conventions is that they've always been negative, always hostile, whereas the Republicans have had better success connecting with the American people by being positive. So this time the Dems went that route, and it was the GOP that was angry. Interesting role reversal.

BTW, I'm hearing more and more that Zell Miller has "changed" in the last year or two, and that his behavior has become more bellicose, which I think is strange. It's easy to just say that he's an ***, but maybe he's actually got some sort of problem.

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897622/)

Looks like Miller's speech was too hot for the GOP to handle...

After gauging the harsh reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike to Sen. Zell Miller’s keynote address at the Republican National Convention, the Bush campaign — led by the first lady — backed away Thursday from Miller’s savage attack on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, insisting that the estranged Democrat was speaking only for himself.

Late Thursday, Miller and his wife were removed from the list of dignitaries who would be sitting in the first family’s box during the president’s acceptance speech later in the evening. Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said Miller was not in the box because the campaign had scheduled him to do too many television interviews.

There was no explanation, however, for why Miller would be giving multiple interviews during Bush’s acceptance speech, or what channels would snub the president in favor of Miller. Nor was it made clear why Miller’s wife also was not allowed to take her place in the president’s box 24 hours after his deeply personal denunciation of his own party’s nominee.

The Bush campaign stepped backed from Miller’s comments Thursday after it was received with almost immediate criticism, including complaints from prominent Republicans like Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

“Well, Zell Miller is a very experienced politician,” McCain, who spoke earlier at the convention, told NBC News on Wednesday night.

“I’m sure he knew exactly what he was talking about. [But] I just don’t agree with the fact that the Democrats are unpatriotic or the assertion that the Democrats are unpatriotic,” he said. “I don’t think they are.”


Not to mention his speech, like Arnold's, was full of lies.

[takao]

sadly the article in the german "der spiegel" isn't available in english ..it's a wonderfull read for those who understand german:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,316408,00.html
i liked the "democrats are Ikea ,republicans are k-mart" and the comparing to MTV awards parts...

ohhh were are such absolutly stunning articles in english when you need them...

[IJ Reilly]

ohhh were are such absolutly stunning articles in english when you need them...

Are you up for a translation? I tried Sherlock but the results were comedic.

[takao]

Are you up for a translation? I tried Sherlock but the results were comedic.

i might try it later but i'm not sure if i can make a good one ...i only had around Cs for both german and english in school

perhaps i start later ..but it might take some time (i'm driving to innsbruck tomorrow for a day so it will perhaps take untill sunday)

[blackfox]

perhaps I am late to the discussion, but looking at Satire I feel that it is primarily a defensive tool...I know it is personally...a method of resolving paradox, of keeping sane and upbeat faced with sheer madness.

Since I see it primarily as a reactionary tool, Satire's effects are mainly passive and diffusive and difficult to gauge...I will say that satire, like much humor, has the ability to cut through the ************ unlike anything else. People of all stripes can respond to that. An important part of an arsenal, but not enough in itself...

[solvs]

I just saw them talking about this guy on the Daily Show. This guy is a LUNATIC.
It's pretty sad when one of the few news sources we can trust is a comedic show. But I suppose Jon Stewart is a commie pinko because he dares makes fun of the president (even though he makes fun of Clinton, Gore, Dean, Kerry, etc) and is part of the liberal elite that barely (if at all) questioned Bush leading us into Iraq. [Which for all of you "moderate" conservatives out there is what turns me off of your party. That whole "you're with us, or you're against us" thing bugs me just as much as when the liberals do it, but at least they don't question your patriotism.]

To be fair though, sometimes Stewart is a little soft on some guest that you know he just wants to lay into in his effort for "fairness".

[Neserk]

Socialism is a far left ideal.

Socialism is a religious ideal. It is taught in all three major monotheistic religions.

[skunk]

Indeed. Well said.

[stubeeef]

Socialism is a religious ideal. It is taught in all three major monotheistic religions.

A point taken by the present administration. It is the faith based initiative proposed by W.

As with most charities, they are required to present their % admin cost. Like 10% of every $.

I almost believe the US governments would be $2 per $1 brought in.

Faith based or not, private charities whether green peace or our local samaritans kitchen, are massively more effecient at getting the resources to the need than the government. I like my socialism community and volunteer based, not US government style. If I give $1000 to the local soup kitchen it will go much further than welfare will take it.

[Neserk]

A point taken by the present administration. It is the faith based initiative proposed by W.


As I explained to my father:

If Christians *ALONE* were doing what their religion taught there would be no need and never would have been a need for government intervention.

And Christians need to do this regardless of what the government does. There is no need for faith-based initiatives. It is a crux.

Faith based initiative should never need to exist because religious organizations SHOULD ALREADY BEING DOING THIS. Instead they prefer to build multi-million dollar comlexes and drive big cars. My father, who is Republican, agreed.

I started voting mostly democrat in college (even though I am non-afiliated)when I realized that that no one who was a Christian could vote for the kinds of things Republicans stand for. I will repeat that. No TRUE Christain could vote for the things the Republicans stand for. Their structure goes completely AGAINST the Teaching of Jesus as presentend in the Gospels.

[Neserk]

A point taken by the present administration. It is the faith based initiative proposed by W.

As with most charities, they are required to present their % admin cost. Like 10% of every $.

I almost believe the US governments would be $2 per $1 brought in.

Faith based or not, private charities whether green peace or our local samaritans kitchen, are massively more effecient at getting the resources to the need than the government. I like my socialism community and volunteer based, not US government style. If I give $1000 to the local soup kitchen it will go much further than welfare will take it.

So? Why aren't they doing it? Because most people who call themselves Christians are NOT. Including Bush. They should read the Gospel of Matthew, particularly the story of the Goats and Sheep.

[stubeeef]

So? Why aren't they doing it? Because most people who call themselves Christians are NOT. Including Bush. They should read the Gospel of Matthew, particularly the story of the Goats and Sheep.

So why aren't "they" doing what?

Giving to charity? I think they do.

I don't judge others christianity, and christians should not judge each other or others.....maybe we should get rid of the court system too. But thankyou for the insight into others faithfulness. BTW is kerry a christian?...he says he is...goes to church and all. By your reconning he is a false christian. Now we have both candidates back to even ground...like in the polls.
:rolleyes:

[Neserk]

So why aren't "they" doing what?


They aren't doing what the bible (The whole bible) teaches. They aren't taking care of the poor and those who can't take care of themselves.



Giving to charity? I think they do.


Not enough. Or they wouldn't have such huge houses and expensive cars when their are people living in squalor. ANd that is just in the United States. I'm not even talking about those living outside.


I don't judge others christianity, and christians should not judge each other or others....


Then you need to read your bible carefully. 1st John 4:7-8 Beloved let us love one another, for love is of God and EVERYONE that loves is born of God and KNOWS God. They that love not, know not God for God is love.

That shows a very clear abilitly to identify those who know God and those who don't.

In the writings attributed to Paul he is very clear about how to judge those who are and are not Christians. Specifically gossipers, gluttons, and pedophiles.

In Matthew there is the story of the Goats and Sheep. Those who do not feed the hungry and take care of the sick and visit prisoners are the goats and God does not know them.

Read the stories instead of listening to self-serving preachers.



But thankyou for the insight into others faithfulness.


It isn't mine. It comes directly from the book which supposed Christians make their claims from. And glad to be of service.


BTW is kerry a christian?...he says he is...goes to church and all. By your reconning he is a false christian. Now we have both candidates back to even ground...like in the polls.
:rolleyes:

How do you know what Kerry does for the poor and sick? He certainly doesn't run a government which has raised the cost of medicare and prescriptions for the elderly and disabled. The fact Kerry is a Democrat and believes that the poor etc. need help is a good sign of his faith.

And Kerry is running on his faith. Bush is.

[stubeeef]

As I explained to my father:

If Christians *ALONE* were doing what their religion taught there would be no need and never would have been a need for government intervention.

And Christians need to do this regardless of what the government does. There is no need for faith-based initiatives. It is a crux.

Faith based initiative should never need to exist because religious organizations SHOULD ALREADY BEING DOING THIS. Instead they prefer to build multi-million dollar comlexes and drive big cars. My father, who is Republican, agreed.

I started voting mostly democrat in college (even though I am non-afiliated)when I realized that that no one who was a Christian could vote for the kinds of things Republicans stand for. I will repeat that. No TRUE Christain could vote for the things the Republicans stand for. Their structure goes completely AGAINST the Teaching of Jesus as presentend in the Gospels.

Are you a Christian? "I realized that that no one who was a Christian could vote for the kinds of things Republicans stand for".

[Neserk]

Are you a Christian? "I realized that that no one who was a Christian could vote for the kinds of things Republicans stand for".

Not anymore. I was through my mid/late-twenties. Then I realized that I had to separate myself from those who called themselved Christians because they are not. I believe in the teaching of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels but not the way in which the average preacher teaches them, necessarily.

There are exceptions. There are a *few* Republicans who actually do follow the tenants of Judaism/Islam/Christianity. But they are far and few between.

[stubeeef]

They aren't doing what the bible (The whole bible) teaches. They aren't taking care of the poor and those who can't take care of themselves.



Not enough. Or they wouldn't have such huge houses and expensive cars when their are people living in squalor. ANd that is just in the United States. I'm not even talking about those living outside.



Then you need to read your bible carefully. 1st John 4:7-8 Beloved let us love one another, for love is of God and EVERYONE that loves is born of God and KNOWS God. They that love not, know not God for God is love.

That shows a very clear abilitly to identify those who know God and those who don't.

In the writings attributed to Paul he is very clear about how to judge those who are and are not Christians. Specifically gossipers, gluttons, and pedophiles.

In Matthew there is the story of the Goats and Sheep. Those who do not feed the hungry and take care of the sick and visit prisoners are the goats and God does not know them.

Read the stories instead of listening to self-serving preachers.




It isn't mine. It comes directly from the book which supposed Christians make their claims from. And glad to be of service.



How do you know what Kerry does for the poor and sick? He certainly doesn't run a government which has raised the cost of medicare and prescriptions for the elderly and disabled. The fact Kerry is a Democrat and believes that the poor etc. need help is a good sign of his faith.

And Kerry is running on his faith. Bush is.

I am glad he, kerry has repented for his war crimes...killing in such rampages...
I Know he lives in LOTS of big expensive houses, has lots of cars, and oh the jets too...
I know he is not following his catholic teachings...right to life.
I know he has replaced the religous leader on his campaign staff at least twice.
If you think the Democrats are the way to jesus you have problems. There are NO POLITICIANS, left or right, republican, democrat, green party, or libertarian that have a corner on Christ, or Christianity.

Don't invite the scripture quoting it will go to infinity, every christian faction does it century after century.
I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ was/is the messiah. I am hoping that you are a follower as well. Let us both repent of our daily sins and vote our conscience.

[Neserk]

I am a Christian


Then how could you possibly vote for Bush? The two do not work together.

[stubeeef]

Then how could you possibly vote for Bush? The two do not work together.

May I ask who you think a Christian should vote for? DO NOT SAY KERRY! Give me someone else that is viable.

Please refer to previous post about Politians and Religon.

If Mother Theresa were running I would vote for her, volunteer on the staff, donate loads of cash, and have hope eternal...but Mother Theresa would never have run..

ABOUT THE POLLS THOUGH...I BELIEVE THEY REFLECT A NEW POLITICAL WIND SURE TO LAST AT LEAST 30MINS OR 60 SOME DAYS..WHICHEVER HAPPENS FIRST OR LAST.

[Neserk]

Overall, the Democratic platform is more in line with Jesus teaching. So, with some exceptions I'd say a Christian should vote for Democrats.

[IJ Reilly]

Is this a private fight, or can anybody join in?

I'm not going to get involved in trying to decide who is the properly righteous candidate, but I was really amused by this remark:

May I ask who you think a Christian should vote for? DO NOT SAY KERRY! Give me someone else that is viable.

So, Christians demand viability from their candidates, but not from a fetus? Sorry, that was a bit crude... but my point being, wouldn't a "true Christian" vote for the person who'd carry the Christian message, whether they were "viable" or not? Or are Christians more interested in winning than in being in the Lord's service?

[blackfox]

So, Christians demand viability from their candidates, but not from a fetus?
Not quite bumpersticker material there IJ...
wouldn't a "true Christian" vote for the person who'd carry the Christian message, whether they were "viable" or not?
I believe it is not carry so much as state a Christian message. From priests to ministers to politicians, it is do as I say, not as I do...to do in action is much harder than merely lip-service, and to discern from actions requires more effort than rote affinity for certain soundbites...
Or are Christians more interested in winning than in being in the Lord's service? How can you do the Lord's work if you don't win?

[Neserk]

Is this a private fight, or can anybody join in?



Please join in!

My part comes from spent part of the past week with my Republican parents who are completely hypocritical. My dad stated (not agreed with me but actually stated w/o my input) that Jesus was socialist. Then he goes on to vote for Republicans who have no concern for the very reason Jesus was socialists. I can't get a word in edgewise with him so I come here where at *least* I can type out my thoughts on the matter!

[Neserk]

Or are Christians more interested in winning than in being in the Lord's service?

The problem lies in the fact that many (although not all) Christians are more interested in approval from their ministerial staff than they are in anything the bible says.

The sad thing is that most people have no clue what the bible says because it is quite simply to difficult to figure it out.

This is why I choose to go to seminary after college. Here is the killer: I could choose a 3 year degree and get an MDiv or a 2 year degree and get a MA in Theological Studies. Well, I choose the 2 year degree. Why? Because it was shorter (you wonder)? No, because the 2 year degree had more courses in Biblical studies (ie actual classes where you studied the bible, culture, archaeology, etc.) than did the 3 year degree. Strange, huh? You'd think the most important thing a pastor/minister could do was study the bible but apparently learning how to play politics was a higher priority.

My point? Ministers aren't equipped to actually teach about the bible because less than 2 years of the time they spend in school are dedicated to actually studying the bible instead they study the art of sales (I know a large number of people who eventually leave the profession or take a break and up going into sales -- same job, different product) and running a church. These people go on to preach weekly (if not more often) to people who know even less.

Any wonder I stopped going to church? I got tired of hearing ministers talk about things they knew nothing about or only knew half a truth.

[pseudobrit]

A point taken by the present administration. It is the faith based initiative proposed by W.

So you're saying Bush is a socialist?

I like my socialism community and volunteer based, not US government style. If I give $1000 to the local soup kitchen it will go much further than welfare will take it.

Have you ever volunteered at a soup kitchen?

[IJ Reilly]

The problem lies in the fact that many (although not all) Christians are more interested in approval from their ministerial staff than they are in anything the bible says.

My feeling is that Christians should spend a lot less time trying to make bad examples of others and a lot more time trying to make good examples of themselves. But then, what do I know?

[IJ Reilly]

So?

[takao]

So?

you know ... "for god and fatherland",flag-waving and stuff ;)

[stubeeef]

So you're saying Bush is a socialist?

No, please read it all again.

Have you ever volunteered at a soup kitchen?

Yes, the samaritan ministiries has one in my home town, have also help with habitat house. I give them and the church money too!

government is the least efficent and/or effective means of distributing assests.

[Neserk]

The desire for making health care more affordable or free to all people. Welfare which, while flawed, is a step in providing for those who temporarily or permanently can't provide for themselves. Reaching out to the disenfranchised as Jesus did. This is something that is seldom recongized or taught in churches. Primarily out of ignorance. As I posted earlier those in charge get little educaiton in the culture that surrounds the New Testament so they often miss the significance of Jesus breaking bread with Prostitutes or Jesus talking with the woman at the well.

I don't really care what this church or that church says about stem cell research or anything else for that matter. Church's do not, never have, and probably never will define Chrisitianity.

I'm more concerned with Jesus' teachings.

[Neserk]

Yes, the samaritan ministiries has one in my home town, have also help with habitat house. I give them and the church money too!

government is the least efficent and/or effective means of distributing assests.


Then why are there still people who's basic needs are not being met? Oh, that is because most of you aren't doing enough or doing squat.

[stubeeef]

Then why are there still people who's basic needs are not being met? Oh, that is because most of you aren't doing enough or doing squat.

Basic needs are very important.
I am sure that Mrs Hienz and Sen kerry with over 1billion in assests, or over 10times that of Cheney and Bush combined, could answer that better than I could.
I am doing ok this year for the first time in over 10 years. I drive a 1989 honda crx with 260,000+ miles and my wife and kids are driving 1993 minivan with 190,000 miles on it. I gave over $5000 in charitable contributions last year.
I think most people are irresponsible with their money. I believe most with new cars can least afford it. There are plenty of jobs around, are they all 6 figure? NO! I worked 5 jobs simultaneously so my wife could stay home and raise our kids, from 1998-1999. I did not make much from each job but together it almost covered our minimal expenses. I STILL GAVE TO CHARITY.
There are many people due to no fault of their own need help, usually temporarily. I believe many people could do more for theirselves if they really wanted to. I believe that if you have money to share with YOUR community you have a responsibility to do so. If you do not have enough money to share, there are pleanty of people who could benefit from your volunteer time.
IT GRIPES ME TO HEAR YOU SAY "MOST OF YOU", I AM GUESSING THAT YOU MEAN WEALTHY REPUBLICANS? HOW ABOUT MOST OF YOU...DEMOCRATS WITH MIDDLE AND UPPER WEALTH, SINCE THEIR ARE MORE DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS IT SEEMS THAT IS MORE THE FAULT OF THE GREEDY DEMOCRATS THAN THE GREEDY REPUBLICANS.
Your hatered is blind and narrow. I must say if you want to support kerry because you only want to remove Bush, then you have a valid reason. If you persist to push kerry on kerry's merits than you have no leg to stand on.

[blackfox]

And what the hell are Bush's merits Stu?

Think hard before answering...

[stubeeef]

And what the hell are Bush's merits Stu?

Think hard before answering...

I was going to list them, then the condescending "think hard before answering..." line was making my blood boil.

How about...you think hard...try...try somemore....now go past 1+1...keep warming up........OK GO---what are kerrys merits?

[Rower_CPU]

Play nice, folks.

[blackfox]

Stu, I didn't mean to sound condescending...I just wanted to be assured that we wouldn't be discussing "sound-bites" and other such trivial topics...I apologize for any misconceptions...in fairness, your previous post could not be considered exactly "nice" in tone (towards Democrats in particular)...so let's move on and discuss something, shall we...

[Neserk]

I think basic needs are being met. Can you find any numbers on how many people died of starvation in the U.S. last year? I would be surprised if there was even one. (And I am referring to people who died of starvation because they didn't have enough food.)

Were there people who didn't have shelter? Sure, but this problem is massively more complex than the food issue. There are already government housing projects, faith based temporary shelters, and government based temporary shelters. And I think that an able bodied person can find shelter in this country.


You are naive. I've been in the projects and children's homes. Many live in squalor and have inadequate nutrition. If it weren't for school breakfasts/lunches they'd be severly malnourished. This shouldn't be. They should have plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables along with other food necessities. It isn't a matter of starving to death (in the US) as it is a matter of not having access to healthy food.

ANd many of us do not have basic health care. I'm do for a mammogram come this winter when I turn 35 and every year after for the rest of my life. I have no idea how that is going to happen but it has to happen or may mean my death. Want to send me a check to pay for it?

[Neserk]

And what the hell are Bush's merits Stu?

Think hard before answering...

He has none. Oh! He did do one good thing after taking office, although I don't know the context so I don't know if he deserves credit. All people who get medicare now get a free health screening/check up upon receiving it.

[Neserk]

Play nice, folks.


You never let us have any fun ;)

[Rower_CPU]

You never let us have any fun ;)

If by "fun" you mean break forum rules, then no. :p

[Neserk]

If by "fun" you mean break forum rules, then no. :p

:D

[blackfox]

If by "fun" you mean break forum rules, then no. :p Was I guilty of an infraction Rower? I am often not in control of my faculties...just clarifying.

[G4scott]

Well, if you want to hear Bush's merits, you could download Zell Miller's speech from the iTMS. That about sums it up :-p (for those who don't know any better, that was sarcasm...)

It's been a while since I've posted in the political discussions, and I thought I'd just poke my head back in to see how things were going... Same as normal. Whether or not that's a good thing, I'm not sure... Have fun kids! Conspiracy Theories ahoy!

[zimv20]

I drive a 1989 honda crx with 260,000+ miles and my wife and kids are driving 1993 minivan with 190,000 miles on it. I gave over $5000 in charitable contributions last year.

if just one in ten were as responsible w/ their money and that generous, we'd be a lot better off.

[Rower_CPU]

Was I guilty of an infraction Rower? I am often not in control of my faculties...just clarifying.

Nobody was, but I saw the potential for the discussion to take that turn and stepped in with a friendly reminder that I was monitoring things. :)

[skunk]

Get your retaliation in first, eh? This pre-emptive thing is infectious! :rolleyes:

[Neserk]

Get your retaliation in first, eh? This pre-emptive thing is infectious! :rolleyes:


LOL...

[Rower_CPU]

Get your retaliation in first, eh? This pre-emptive thing is infectious! :rolleyes:

Next thing you know, people will be getting banned for future infractions. :eek: :p

[Neserk]

Next thing you know, people will be getting banned for future infractions. :eek: :p

hmmmmmmmm...

[solvs]

Don't you remember what happened in Minority Report? No? Me neither.

[IJ Reilly]

I wish I could remember the name of it, but a long time ago Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about a computer so smart that it could predict when people were likely to commit a crime, so they could be preemptively arrested. As I remember the story, in the end the computer couldn't take such a heavy responsibility and committed electronic suicide. So watch out, Rower!

[Neserk]

I wish I could remember the name of it, but a long time ago Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about a computer so smart that it could predict when people were likely to commit a crime, so they could be preemptively arrested. As I remember the story, in the end the computer couldn't take such a heavy responsibility and committed electronic suicide. So watch out, Rower!


There was a movie along similar lines with Tom Cruise in it. I can't recall the name at the moment.

[Neserk]

Don't you remember what happened in Minority Report? No? Me neither.


That's it! I guess I should have read back. Minority Report! Thanks :D

[Leo Hubbard]

So why aren't "they" doing what?

Giving to charity? I think they do.

I don't judge others christianity, and christians should not judge each other or others.....maybe we should get rid of the court system too. But thankyou for the insight into others faithfulness. BTW is kerry a christian?...he says he is...goes to church and all. By your reconning he is a false christian. Now we have both candidates back to even ground...like in the polls.
:rolleyes:
Compare Kerry's tax return with Bush's. Kerry made more money, but Bush gave more to charity.

[Leo Hubbard]

The desire for making health care more affordable or free to all people. Welfare which, while flawed, is a step in providing for those who temporarily or permanently can't provide for themselves. Reaching out to the disenfranchised as Jesus did. This is something that is seldom recongized or taught in churches. Primarily out of ignorance. As I posted earlier those in charge get little educaiton in the culture that surrounds the New Testament so they often miss the significance of Jesus breaking bread with Prostitutes or Jesus talking with the woman at the well.

I don't really care what this church or that church says about stem cell research or anything else for that matter. Church's do not, never have, and probably never will define Chrisitianity.

I'm more concerned with Jesus' teachings.
I have the desire that everyone lives in a high tech house, loaded with computers, food was free, medicine was free, we discovered the cure for old age, more importantly we discovered the cure for all sexual disease so we can have as much sex with everyone we want because there are no longer any conscequences. Perhaps I should run for President? :p

[IJ Reilly]

The Asimov story is called "All the Troubles in the World," and was published in 1958, just a few years before "Minority Report" was made.

[skunk]

I have the desire that everyone lives in a high tech house, loaded with computers, food was free, medicine was free, we discovered the cure for old age, more importantly we discovered the cure for all sexual disease so we can have as much sex with everyone we want because there are no longer any conscequences. Perhaps I should run for President? :p
That's some manifesto...

[stubeeef]

That's some manifesto...

What was this thread about again...........?

[IJ Reilly]

What was this thread about again...........?

That old sex maniac, Zell Miller. :)

[stubeeef]

That old sex maniac, Zell Miller. :)

:p :p :p :p

[solvs]

Compare Kerry's tax return with Bush's. Kerry made more money, but Bush gave more to charity.
If true that's good of him. Don't really have a problem with the man, just the politics. If Kerry does the same things, I will vote his **** out of office just as fast.

That old sex maniac, Zell Miller. :)
And thanks for that visual image. Where's that smilie with the guy throwing up?