Postpone the election untill our poll numbers..um the terrorFollow

Fight Back against the Fear (aka check my sig)

V
V
V
V

Yeah. But you put a completely different "spin" on the subject, when you omit the words "and reschedule in the event of a terrorist event" from the sentence, and just leave "cancel the election".

How exactly does *that* deliberate bit of misinformation help an intelligent conversation?

No matter what words you use, it's abundantly clear that what they are talking about is contingencies to handle a situation where a major terrorist event occurs on or immediately before the election. You can read all you want into that, but given that that's *exactly* what happened in Spain, you'd have to be extremely naive to assume that no such thing could possibly occur here. And it would be nearly criminal to not at least look into possiblities to deal with something like that.


It's just doing due dilligence folks. If he considers the possiblity, and outlines a potential plan to deal with it, and Congress declines to take action, then he's done what he can. If he doesn't consider the possibility, and doesn't present the plan to Congress, and something does happen, then the "blame" falls squarely on his office. It's his job to look at potential problems with the election and come up with plans to deal with them. Ultimately, Congress will decide what changes are made, he's just coming up with suggestions and ideas. At what point is it *wrong* for someone to submit an idea to Congress for consideration? I'd think allowing our elected officials to make the call is the right thing to do. By not presenting the plan, he's effectively making their choice for them. Think about it.

Gbaji, I truly do wish I had your faith.

Who leaked it Newsweek?

Must have been a liberal out to use the biased media to help generate fear because that'll help Kerry.

Seems to me you're contradicting yourself. First you go on about conspiracies and aluminum hats, and now you're reversing it to a "liberal plot" to cause that same "conspiracy"

Well, I enjoy a debate, and since Gbaji is the only one taking up arms to the defense of the Pubs, and one of the few on this board, I really don't want to deflate my argument by name calling.

Huh? The "plot" isn't to cause a conspiracy. It's not a plot at all. It's just straightforward fearmongering. You're comparing apples and oranges here. On the one hand, you've got a group of people who read an article and conclude based on it that the Bush administration is trying to conspire to rig the elections. On the other hand, you've got people like me who are simply pointing out that the article was specifically written to make people come to the conclusion.

Which is right? Well, obviously, since many of you *did* come to that conclusion (or even just suspicion), then I am, by default, correct. The article caused you to suspect that the Bush administration was doing something shady. End of story.

On the other hand, the "conspiracy" that you guys are all talking about requires a bizaare and unexplained amount of elements that no one seems to logically be able to describe. Ok. How exactly does warning people of a possible terrorist atttack during the elections help Bush? No one seems to be able to explain that. Funny, huh? Just put on your alluminum hat and believe. No thinking required here.

Same thing with this story. How exactly does giving the election commitee the power to delay the election in the event of terrorist attack help the bush administration? It could just as easily do the opposite. You don't know how the counting would be handled, or who would change their votes if there was a delay for some reason. You're just guessing that somehow, someway, it'll help the Bush administration. Unless you are assuing that somehow by delaying the election, they'll also be able to tamper with the results. Um. But that's another whole conspiracy theory. They'd need to be able to do more then just delay the election to do that, and if they could do that, they could probably do it *without* needing to delay anyway. It's classic paranoia. Let me get your alluminum hat for you...



On the one hand, you've got an article that's making you all think that the sky is falling. On the other, you've got me saying that the article was written just to make you think the sky is falling. I'm the one pointing at chicken Little and saying to not listen to him. It's really just that simple. But if you'd prefer to believe that the sky is falling, and that every action our government takes is solely directed at ******** you over, then go ahead. Just don't forget to wear your alluminum hat...

What the? Gbaji what are you talking about? All I said was this:

First you said that our concept of the current govt. using fear through the media to deter voters was a paranoid conspiracy and that we need to put on our aluminum hats.

Then you said it's actual liberals who leaked the information to make it seem like the Republicans were trying to deter voters by using fear.

All I'm saying is that you are contradicting yourself in calling us conspiracy theorists, then reversing the same plot onto the opposition.

I seriously don't know where you came up with the rest of that stuff, but I'm assuming it's somewhere deep within the abyss that is your ***.

Edited, Mon Jul 12 20:56:10 2004 by CrimsonMagician

No that's not what I'm saying at all Totem. I don't think it IS going to happen. My only point was that all this kind of thing does is create fear, fear which I think is a form of control.

When I said I wish I had his faith, it basically boils down to me wishing I could believe Bush and Co. are inherently good people, and that everything could be just taken at face value.

Edited, Mon Jul 12 21:31:59 2004 by CrimsonMagician

Yeah. But I'll ask this questio again:

Who does the "fear" in this article help? Does the article bring about a fear of a terrorist event? Or a fear of your governent maybe manipulating the election to their own ends?

It's an easy question. It should have an easy answer. When you answer the question, and then go back and look at *how* the article was written to convey that fear, you'll understand what I'm talking about.



Heh. I don't have a faith that Bush and Co, are inherently good people. I accept that they are politicians, just like any other. I will, however, argue with anyone who just blindly assumes that they are "bad people". Doubly so, when most of you have that impression purely from articles like this one written specifically to make you fear the current administration. It's not a conspiracy at all. It's simply that most reporters feel that it's their job to "expose" the bad things that our government might be doing. And if they can use their wordcraft to imply "badness" at every opportunity, they will do so.


No conspiracy is needed here. Just a history of bad reporting in this country.

I'm so done with this. Once again you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you are saying that the "conspiracy" or "biased" content of the article to create fear, therefore keeping voters from going to the polls is a tin hat argument.

The you come back with your own "conspiracy" or "biased" view saying that the article was written to give the slant that it's trying to make it seem as if the Bush Administration should be feared.

Once again we are in the same place.

You never answered my question in the very beginning on whether or not fear can be used as an instrument of control, and it's gone downhill ever since. You continue to pull stuff out of your *** and argue something that was never up for debate in the beginning. Good day to you.

Edited, Mon Jul 12 21:50:51 2004 by CrimsonMagician

So tricky, your wording suggests that the possible threat is imaginary or ginned up by the Bush administration to sway votes in his direction.

Has it gotten so bad for you that you mentally side with terrorists and give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not planning an attack ans instead immediately assume that Bush is creating a fake threat to push the election his way?

Are you really that cynical?

What has caused this level of suspicion? The Iraq war? The economy? The lack of another terrorist attck on the United States?

Because to my eyes, it appears you have decided Al Qaeda has more credibility and trustworthiness than your own president.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Totem

I wouldn't measure my intelligence in the stupid range, no. But I will say again, your wording suggests that you don't think it beyond the realm of possibility-- something I will come right out and say it is. The use of the word "alleged" and your thinking that somehow Bush would benefit as opposed to Kerry tell me that you would be inclined to think it is definitely possible.

Totem