An Olive Branch

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:31:50 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

I don't see any evidence of the "Religious Right" in the Republican Party --
at least not in these parts.

You can't see our president? HUGE grin

More seriously, you didn't hear about his support of faith based
initiatives?

Corky Scott

Jay Honeck wrote:
In my opinion being dyslexic goes a LONG way towards explaining his
lack of reading ability and difficulty with the english language. For
dyslexics, reading is especially difficult, it's "hard work" ;-).
As always, Corky, your observations are refreshing and spot on. This DOES
make sense.

Of course, that would only explain his problems with the teleprompter.
He also stumbles, and often looks confused, when he's being asked a
question off the cuff. He may be intelligent enough, when given enough
time to think about things, but a President should be able to speak
intelligently about subjects, with little or no preparation, without
stumbling like an idiot. There's still the 7 minutes he waited after the
2nd plane hit the towers. What if it had been the beginning of a nuclear
attack?

And one other thing I thought of (un-related)... Doesn't it bother anyone
that the Bush campaign REQUIRED people to sign an oath of allegiance
before allowing them into his rallies. Actually, that one issue would
have prevented me from voting for him. That was absolutely deplorable.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:%Qqid.54866$R05.31197@attbi_s53...
It really doesn't matter whether it was in this thread or not.

Sure it does. If you're referring to my response to someone eviscerating
our president in another thread as being "anti-Kerry", well, that's your
problem.

I'm not referring to your "response to someone eviscerating our president".
Nor would the thread matter even in that case.

I was -- and am -- ready to put the whole issue aside for another four
years --

So you say.

but I'm not going to sit idly by while someone calls everyone who voted
for Bush "stupid"...

Oops...apparently you're not ready to put the whole issue aside.

True diplomacy requires a bit more than just *saying* you'll hold your
tongue. You need to actually do it.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:aItid.296104$wV.217316@attbi_s54...
I'm a "conservative" and mostly "Republican" -- but I'm no church-goer,
and I don't see any evidence of the "Religious Right" in the Republican
Party

The facts are not on your side. The Republican party has made a huge effort
to woo the "religious right", especially over the last two decades. There's
a reason that the strong push to encourage evangelical Christians to come
out and vote was backed by the Republican party. Exit polls from this
election (and any other recent elections) clearly show a strong correlation
between degree of religious conviction and voting Republican.

[...]
Are there religious people in the Republican Party? Sure! And there's a
whole bunch of 'em in the Democratic Party, too.

A true statement. But one that ignores who the evangelicals and
fundamentalists generally vote for. Not all people who consider themselves
"religious" actually share the same beliefs, but there is definitely one
core group of people who consider themselves "religious" that the
Republicans go out of their way to appeal to. And, contrary to the supposed
"conservative" nature of the Republican party, that core group would very
much have all of their religious tenets codified into law.

Pete

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:59:29 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:

Two theories quoted in the article were that 1) this is a facade that Bush has
adopted and 2) that the run for the presidency has simply overwhelmed him. Between
those two, I would tend to believe the first. The problem I have with the second
theory is that Bush's confidence should have been restored after years in the White
House.

Not sure. People who have dyslexia learn to deal with it. It never
goes away, but they learn how to work around it (A wonderful way to
deal with it would be to avoid reading and have people verbally brief
you, this is in fact one method of teaching dyslexics in classrooms).
Problem is, for dyslexics it's hard work to decypher each word and
sentence and say what you want to say correctly, and in a flowing
coherent fashion. People who aren't dyslexic simply cannot understand
how hard this is for them. EVERY sentence could trip you up so you
have to be on guard all the time, which is tiring in and of itself.
Bush was younger when he debated with Richards, and perhaps more
resitant to fatigue. That's just a guess.

Naturally, when you get tired, errors in speech happen. That happens
with people who are not dyslexic let alone dyslexics, or at least
that's how things work with me... ;-)

Bush said and has repeated frequently that being the president is hard
work. I believe him. I once saw closeup pictures of Kennedy,
comparing his youthful appearance at his inauguration and three years
later. He had aged dramatically. The crush of the responsibility of
leading the nation was and is intense.

Confidence should have no effect on a dyslexic. It's like saying that
confidence will help a person who has bad eyesight see better. It
won't. Fatigue, on the other hand, would have a profound effect on a
dyslexic.

I should also mention again that Bush's brother was diagnosed as being
dyslexic and dyslexia does run in families.

Corky Scott

PS, I should also mention that there are widely varying degrees of
dyslexia. Some see whole words backwards, some have trouble
differentiating between certain letters like b, d, p, q and h. To a
dyslexic, they can all look the same. Others have no problem reading,
but cannot remember what they just read, no short term memory. Still
others displace words and say: "I will there go" instead of "I will go
there". Very commonly, similar words will be mistaken, like cole slaw
for callous, or nuculer for nuclear. During one speech, Bush
repeatedly said nuculer, when he obviously meant to say nuclear. Or
at least I hope so because "nuculer" isn't a word. It doesn't make
him stupid, or slow, but it's an indicator of a language problem.

I mean honestly, why would anyone develop a facade of a language
problem? Did THAT get him elected? I sure hope not.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ke7id.350687$MQ5.178085@attbi_s52...
Now that it appears that George Bush has been re-elected with a true
majority of the popular vote (the first president to do so in 16 years),
let me be the first to extend an olive branch to those here who may be
disappointed in the results.

Jay Honeck

Olive branch? I don't think so. They wanted us Socialist on Monday .. and
they
also still wanted us Socialist today. They're attitude hasn't changed .. why
should ours. The Socialists are the most dangerous thing we face. They wish
to confiscate our earnings and give them to those who won't earn their own,
they want to take our guns so we can't stop them. They wish to control every
aspect of our lives with an ever increasing government. We're in a civil
war with the Left (minus the shooting .. yet) and we can't stop fighting for
a second. You can bet they're already plotting for 2008.

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
news
[...] Very commonly, similar words will be mistaken, like cole slaw
for callous, or nuculer for nuclear. During one speech, Bush
repeatedly said nuculer, when he obviously meant to say nuclear. Or
at least I hope so because "nuculer" isn't a word.

How then, is that an example of "similar words" being mistaken for each
other?

It doesn't make
him stupid, or slow, but it's an indicator of a language problem.

He may have a language problem, but his mispronounciation of "nuclear" is no
indication of one. It's a dialect difference, one that I find incredibly
annoying, but which is quite common, especially in the south.

Some cynics would say that when Bush was in Yale, he didn't have a southern
accent, but I don't know that to be true, nor would I waste much time
arguing about it.

I mean honestly, why would anyone develop a facade of a language
problem? Did THAT get him elected? I sure hope not.

Much of his stumbling seems genuine. However, it certainly doesn't pay to
appear too smart. To many people, especially the half of those who have IQs
below 100, people who are simply speaking in what is a natural way for them,
but who have large vocabularies and tend to try to incorporate nuances of
issues in their statements wind up coming across as arrogant, or at least
not "warm".

Inasmuch as Bush may be intelligent, I don't think it's unreasonable to
think that he may be "dumbing down" his image simply to gain more voters.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:%Qqid.54866$R05.31197@attbi_s53...
It really doesn't matter whether it was in this thread or not.

Sure it does. If you're referring to my response to someone eviscerating
our president in another thread as being "anti-Kerry", well, that's your
problem.

I'm not referring to your "response to someone eviscerating our
president". Nor would the thread matter even in that case.

I was -- and am -- ready to put the whole issue aside for another four
years --

So you say.

but I'm not going to sit idly by while someone calls everyone who voted
for Bush "stupid"...

Oops...apparently you're not ready to put the whole issue aside.

True diplomacy requires a bit more than just *saying* you'll hold your
tongue. You need to actually do it.

Well, with taunts from you like this, I suppose he would not. The post was
not very well timed given the rawness of the subject, but don't beat him up
for it. Jay does n ot seem one to vote and it was an (ill-advised) attempt
I think to nudge the posts back to flying...




Pete

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

80% in the case of The Bronx

Yes, we should all model our political opinions on those of the
Bronx.



Well, maybe you would prefer the Financial District then... How about the
83% against Bush in Manhattan... maybe that's more your style?

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Richard Hertz" wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
Now that it appears that George Bush has been re-elected with a true
majority of the popular vote (the first president to do so in 16
years),
let me be the first to extend an olive branch to those here who may be
disappointed in the results.

"Appalled" would better describe it.

You don't know "appalled" unless you were in NY when we voted in a carpet
bagger of the worst sort to the Senate.

Ya' know, if I lived in NY I bet I *would* have been appalled: Hillary
gives
me the creeps.

Amen


--
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
- George W. Bush

That is a scary thought...

Neither party has got it right - I can't imagine a truly competent person
thinking otherwise. To me, the lesser of the two evils is to go with the
'publicans on this one, rather than the socialists...