Pricescope Presidential Poll

rodentman · Oct 26, 2004

Isn't Jim Lehrer related to Tom Lehrer, acerbic liberal folksinger from the 60's?

fire&ice · Oct 26, 2004

----------------
On 10/26/2004 4:28:49 PM rodentman wrote:

Isn't Jim Lehrer related to Tom Lehrer, acerbic liberal olksinger from the 60's?----------------

I wouldn't know anything about that. Before my time. But, I did learn the correct spelling of J.L.'s name.

Todd07 · Oct 26, 2004

Jen,

I read the linked article looking for facts supporting your view that we trained the "attack dog". It had opinion and implied cause but gave no supporting facts (classified?). Clearly you are still confusing coincidence and cause.

Coincidence: the fact or condition of happening at the same time or place or being identical

/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]>

Cause: something that or somebody who makes something happen or exist or is responsible for a certain result

It was coincidence that Bin Laden was fighting for the Mujahdeen when the US was supporting their effort.

We did not cause him to be there.

He would have been there regardless of US involvment.

He would have learned the same fighting skills regardless of US involvement

We did not support him or his camps under the Taliban

We did not train him how to attack the WTC or Navy boat with bombs

We did not train him how hijack planes with box cutters

I respect people voting for Kerry based on abortion, gay rights, etc. but not when they must create false conspiracy or rewrite history (propoganda). You don't need to bend the facts to justify your vote for Kerry when there are so many differences on real issues.

jenwill · Oct 26, 2004

----------------
On 10/26/2004 4:26:53 PM fire&ice wrote:

----------------
On 10/26/2004 2:29:32 PM jenwill wrote:

And what in the world does liking the candidates wives have to do with their ability to run the country?

----------------

Click to expand...

Someone's choice of mates & the way such mate handles themselves in public shows quite a bit. Hiring executives always involves meeting their spouse. And, is *very* telling to the issue of enabling & support of the *ability* for a man to do their job. First ladies are powerful ambassadors of this country. One doesn't have to go past Jackie O to know that. And, from all interviews, sources, etc., I find T.H. to be crass and out of touch. I'm not talking sound bites or phrases taken out of context. All of these ladies have been way more available to the press than in the past. My opinion comes from lots of exposure. When I'm on the fence about something, I tend to look at the whole & not just the individual or one individual thing. I know when making decisions in my husband career; I am *always* consulted & things are bounced off of me. Same with my friends. One only has to read the Pres. biographies to know it translates to the oval office. So, I hope I answered your rather dismissive 'what in the world liking their spouses have anything to do....'

People make judgements everyday based on people's perfomance, demeanor & candor.

The media always has a spin. Everyone always has an agenda. You quoted PBS as *the* word. It's not. It's just one source. Not *the* source. And, some I trust more than others. Quite frankly, I form most of my opinions at balance round table discussions, such as on Jim Lehr's show.

Edited to add: BTW, I said *respect* not like. Completely different sentiments. ----------------

Oh for goodness sakes.

I work for a very large multi-national conglomerate, and hiring of executives does not *always include meeting their spouses*. Some do, some don't.

Yes, a spouse can shed some light onto some aspects of their partner, but not all business decisions are run by the spouse at the end of the day. I agree- if my FH was going to quit his job, make a position change, or is having trouble with a co-worker I would hear about it. But, if he was deciding which bonds to invest in for his bank, or dealing with posting results for their listing on the stock exchange- he is not going to come to me with those. I know nothing about them, would be of no help- he could bounce those things right off of my head, wouldn't make a hill of beans difference.

I do know that the spouses are *ambassadors* of a sort. But I also believe that T. Heinz, as much as you dislike her, has as much ability to be a good ambasssador as the others. She is a board member of a large corporation and charitable fund- an dhas dealt with high level political figures in both her public and private lives. She was raised internationally and speaks several languages, and has seemed to hold her own through marriage to 2 powerful public officials, and raised well adjusted children.

I am sorry you thought I was dismissive with my remark, but perhaps that was in reaction to your seeming dismissiveness of someone you have never met, only seen through the media machine that you openly state shows us not the whole picture, as *common, with very little class*. That was dismissive. And not based on a balanced round table discussion interview.

I did not say that PBS was *the word*, I merely said that I was not bending any statements- that those had come directly from another source. I did not say THE source.

Thank you for showing me that because I hold a different viewpoint than you, formed from different exposures, that I am a misinformed, misguided, and my views are incorrect.

I will quit posting them now, so as not to rock the boat,

Instead I think I will try to do something constructive and get out to 'rock the vote'

jenwill · Oct 26, 2004

OK yuou posted while i was posting, so this really, truly wil be my last post. Figured I had to answer since it was addressed to me.

Thank you for giving me the definitions of those words. Very helpful.

It was coincidence that Bin Laden was fighting for the Mujahdeen when the US was supporting their effort.

- never said it wasn't.

We did not cause him to be there.

Never said we did.

He would have been there regardless of US involvment.

Yep, again, never said he wouldn't.

He would have learned the same fighting skills regardless of US involvement

I disagree- but in any case- not an example of coincidence or cause. Learning skills = effect, not cause. The effect of the US involvement with the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence ) was that whoever was there (coincidentally) learned skills and methods that were proferred by the CIA to help get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. It was coincidental that bin Laden was there, but one of the effects of our involvement was that he was exposed to knowledge of warfare that we gave them.

We did not support him or his camps under the Taliban

Never said we did- said we helped rebel fighters get started- NEVER said we continued to support them .

We did not train him how to attack the WTC or Navy boat with bombs

Nope, but again one of the effects of training someone how to vanquish a large and powerful enemy is to open them to the view that they can vanquish another one.

We did not train him how hijack planes with box cutters

Nope, again, never said we bought them box cutters, or gave them specific box cutter instructions- said that we trained basically unorganized fighting groups in ways of warfare that previously they had not been exposed to.

Have never said the US government caused them to attack us, said simply that our involvement during the formation of these powerful rebel groups may have lead to their ability to form a more cohesive enemy, with a willingness to employ strategies out of the norm- because we showed them what that could accomplish.

By the way, I do oppose Bush's stance on abortion rights, gay marriage, stem cell research, budget deficit, and many many other topics.

But I am just a wacky left coast liberal tree hugger.

AGBF · Oct 26, 2004

----------------
On 10/26/2004 4:03:40 PM Nicrez wrote:

As for the Saudi discussions of their way-ward culture, I am not Saudi, nor do I know many Saudis, but I have to say that this post wreaked of intolerance and disrespect. I have no patience for people (of any religion or culture) who wish to harm anyone or have an intolerant attitude toward anyone else.

...
I respect a person's culture, whether I agree with it or not....
...

That would be I to whom you are referring. I am sorry that you feel I am intolerant, but I think I am just more honest than many people. As Camus had one of his characters say in "L'étranger", "Tout le monde juge" (everyone judges).

I do not respect all other cultures. If one reads "The Mountain People" and "The Forest People" by Colin Turnbull, one sees enormous cruelty in the former and enormous generosity in the latter culture. Of course anthropologists approach the subject matter dispassionately but you-in your impassioned plea for tolerance-show how subjective are your OWN values! You can be tolerant of fundamentalist Muslims (who judge everybody) but not of Americans (like me) who judge fundamentalist Muslims!

Anthropologists have it right: ethnocentrism is the UNIVERSAL belief that one's own way of life is the right and natural way. You are just as ethnocentric as I am.

rodentman · Oct 26, 2004

Ethnoconcentric people can run circles around themselves.

windowshopper · Oct 26, 2004

NICE JOB TODD07

AGBF · Oct 27, 2004

----------------
On 10/26/2004 5:35:59 PM jenwill wrote:

----------------

I will quit posting them now, so as not to rock the boat,
...
Instead I think I will try to do something constructive and get out to 'rock the vote'
----------------

Click to expand...

jenwill,

I hope you can do the vote by day and the thread by night because I would miss your voice here if you really left. I believe that discussion, if at least somewhat rational, can be enlightening. I had not even heard the accusations that John Kerry had left the navy in an unusual manner until I participated in this thread. (I later investigated it on my own and find the reasoning behind it specious, but at least I learned about it by reading the comments of others here.)

Deb

fire&ice · Oct 27, 2004

----------------
On 10/27/2004 6:55:50 AM AGBF wrote:

----------------
On 10/26/2004 5:35:59 PM jenwill wrote:

----------------

I will quit posting them now, so as not to rock the boat,
...
Instead I think I will try to do something constructive and get out to 'rock the vote'
----------------

Click to expand...

jenwill,

I hope you can do the vote by day and the thread by night because I would miss your voice here if you really left. I believe that discussion, if at least somewhat rational, can be enlightening. ----------------

Click to expand...

It's not rocking the boat. I haven't heard anything but the party line.

And, I wonder if the disconnect lies in the fact that many have not "been through this experience/discussion before" (insert discussion). Our foreign policy (regardless what party was in office) has always been "the enemy of our enemy is our friend." I'm not advocating it - just pointing it out as to why we aligned w/ the Afghan rebels. It's no big new scandal. Especially when the Soviet Union was involved. It's come back to bite us on the butt more times than this. But, the creation of Al Q. is much more complicated than giving them some guns. Much of which we have no blame except *someone* should have been more on top of it. Goes to issue of Intelligence (gathering, reading, comprehending & reporting). But, I would venture a guess that we have more Russian translators than Arabic translators.

To issue of T.Heinz's experience: both of us are on the board of trustee's of separate charitible organization/insitition. Our experience has shown us that many people are on the board in name only. So, just because they list your name & you speak about it once in a while, doesn't translate to active participant. Believe me, there's a lot of praise and glory for the non participants, especially when said "name only" carry's some weight. And, positions can be bought. It's the nature of the beast. In all fairness, I don't have any direct experience w/ her (T.H.) involvement. But, I can form an opinion based on several appearances/interviews. And, maintain my opinion about T. Heinz.

To issue of my sentiment about the wives being a factor in my decision: Correct - "always" was too strong a statement about meeting the wives before hiring. But, it is a standard practice when it can be arranged. And, it can be very telling. While my hubby doesn't discuss daily operations with me, he does discuss direction of his company. He discusses the hiring of individuals. He discusses the finances of the company. He discusses some ethical issues. He discuses challenging situations. None of which directly affect our lives. I don't think we are in the minority of couples.

Something important to point out for those of you that pull a straight ticket. 9 states have a separate lever for voting for President. So, don't overlook that. Not that I'm a straight ticket voter. But, I know several very informed very intelligent people who do. It's a voting pattern I could never understand. And, maybe I'm slow; but, I just learned that N.C. is one such state. When we lived there, one could vote straight ticket.

It's amazing how polorized this country is.

Heck, I may write in Rudy G.

Todd07 · Oct 27, 2004

Subject: CREATION!!!/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]/www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]