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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (46088)	9/1/2004 10:13:10 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Respond to of 81568

As an English professor, I know that all words are used in context with other words, unless one speaks a strange language where each word stands alone and completely on its own. In other words, all spoken and written English has to be interpreted by the hearer or the reader. And the interpretation depends on several factors among others. It depends on the context in which a word, phrase or clause exists. It also depends on subliminal communication on the part of the one speaking or writing. Subliminal signals are more likely to be there when one is speaking rather than when one is writing. Effective interpretation also involves activity that is taking place in the mind of the hearer or reader. In other words, one tends to hear a word, a phrase, a clause, on the basis of one's biases. A bias is not necessarily a prejudice but can become one. A bias is a tendency to believe or disbelieve the facts or ideas being presented. A bias "colors" the way one hears or sees. A bias becomes a prejudice when the hearer/reader moves to his interpretation of what is being said or written DESPITE all evidence to the contrary. In other words, one hears or reads what he wants to hear or to read, this in spite of what the speaker/writer intended. Thus, when Bush said: We can't win a war against terror, he meant what he said. If you will go back to Lauer's unedited script of the interview, you will then get the full context of those remarks which surround the quoted passage. You will also be able to discern something about Lauer, the listener. Most important. You will discover that those who (because they were PREJUDICED) wanted to find something, anything, to use as a battering ram against Bush succeeded. But only by taking the clause, separating it from its context, disregarding the clear intent of the speaker, did the Democrats and the liberal/leftist press come away with what they considered RED MEAT. And what have they proved? They have proved that they were already prejudiced. They also proved that they are desperate to find anything, anything at all, that they can even vaguely use against Bush's so-far successful campaign. But one thing they don't yet know. If they think that their continual harping on this non-issue as if it was an issue will CONVERT ONE SINGLE VOTE away from Bush and toward Kerry, then they are not only prejudiced. They are deluded. Surely, in your right mind, you cannot believe that the Democratic campaign and its liberal/leftist media lap dogs believe for a moment that it can convince the American voting public that Kerry/Edwards will wage a bigger and better war against our terrorist opponents than will Bush/Cheney. And yet this is the thrust of their efforts in attempting to use Bush's clause as a battering ram in their failing campaign. But dream on, gerard, if it makes you happy. And plan to sleep the week beginning the Wednesday after Tuesday's election in November. You can sleep through the daily repetition of the results: BUSH WINS! BUSH WINS! BUSH WINS! (and kerry loses bigtime, as Cheney would put it)