Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (79115)	3/2/2003 9:49:33 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think it is fascinating (and a good bit perplexing) at how I thought people would react to this article when Rascal posted it compared to how I feel it is regarded when you post it. I wondered what either Rascal or Bill found new in it. It seemed to echo a great deal we already know about Bush. And didn't add anything. Perhaps I missed something. But Howard Fineman certainly lacks critical distance to write such a piece. It's a puff job. Whether Rascal or Bill post it.

To: FaultLine who wrote (79115)	3/2/2003 10:49:45 PM
From: spiral3	Respond to of 281500

Dear --fl@dazedandconfused.com I saw Rascals post, but did not read the article straight away - I tend to skim whatever is on the current page and when I logged on later, LindyBill’s post was there. I would have thought the same had I read Rascals but my reaction might have been different for it takes an immense amount of restraint on my behalf to not needle LB who knew full well that what he was offering there was his chin. Just like Bush. The more serious reason for the post, albeit not a particularly original one, is that we have to watch the “fundamentalism as anti-modern as fascist” stuff quite closely because it applies to both sides, although in unequal measure of course. “Even though it does not seem like the message should depend on the messenger, it certainly seems like it does to me...” Could you please explain this basic principle to GWB. Also, if you get a chance please ask him how he intends avoiding puppet regimes, friendly autocrats, messy long term military occupation or a general outright disaster. I think it is fascinating (and a good bit perplexing) Everything I’m seeing points to a case of style over substance, but that’s politics. Best spiral3

To: FaultLine who wrote (79115)	3/2/2003 11:15:18 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Even though it does not seem like the message should depend on the messenger, it certainly seems like it does to me...<< Sounds to me like you're coming over to the dark side. Don't worry, you won't lose a thing, except your illusions.;^)

To: FaultLine who wrote (79115)	3/3/2003 12:45:21 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I thought people would react to this article when Rascal posted it I don't know how I missed Rascal's post. I don't double post very often. I posted it to get John's reaction, and I see he thinks it is a puff piece. We have been blessed--perhaps a bad way to put it--with the absence of any militant Evangelicals here. So I may venture a little bit further into my analysis of Bush's religion, and it's influence on the nation. With my credentials as a militant Atheist, I think I can say some things the might sound offensive if they came from a very Religious type. To be a great leader, you need to be able to keep your calm when your subordinates are losing theirs. In times of stress, we need something to hold onto that will allow us the calmness to carry on and make sound decisions. There are several ways to do this, but one that seems to work for a lot of people is meditation. Call it Prayer, chanting, etc, anything that allows you to gather yourself, remove distractions, and figure out what to do. I see Bush using his Christianity to gather personal strength. It helped him solve his drinking and marriage problems. It made it possible for him to move from the life of a rich Texas drunk to the White House. It helps him make it through the night. I think we are faced with the most dangerous world situation that has ever existed for the US. I would rather have a guy with Bush's values in there right now than one who is the normal con man we usually get, who goes to Church for the cameras, but has no core of values that will keep him level in the tight spots.

To: FaultLine who wrote (79115)	3/3/2003 10:16:22 AM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Just catching up. When I posted the article my feeling was that it explained 2 things which bother me most about this Administration. My discomfort with President Bush appearing: #1 Uncurious #2 Incompetent The article shows me the "process" he uses for decisions. Get question, pray/meditate, give answer, move on (have no further doubts or need to reconsider question). President Bush's reliance on the religious explains to me why he seems to make such quick unstudied decisions and then stick to them regardless of any contradictory facts. It explains his strange consistency to his version of the world. And why it is often required that he change the "reasons" for his decisons/objectives. He doesn't concern himself about "how". He is only concerned about "what" and sometimes "when". His "why" is always the same. It explains why he sleeps well and according to reports does not agonize over decisions. He is uninterested or troubled about what-if scenarios. He is always confident about his decided course of action. He might as well get a Ouija board or use Nancy Reagan's astrologer. I wish his "calling" was for almost anything else but being in "Higher Office". I know we all knew about the religion in his life. It had not occured to me that his religion dominated EVERY aspect of his personal and political life. Other Presidents built firewalls between these two aspects as they served. Apparently President Bush needs no such discipline. Rascal@ Iamatotalpessimistnow.com