The Definition of Irony

[achilleus]

AP Article

Snippet:

Bush, in an Associated Press interview, said of Kerry, "He's trying to scare our seniors. It is wrong to try to scare people going into the polls."

Does this last line seem just really ridiculous considering that Bush is running on, 'If you elect Kerry, terrorists will kill you! Vote Bush.'

[Rogue]

Please look up definition of irony.

[jeff]

If it weren't so serious, it would be funny. Nice one, Achilleus (BTW: where in Greece are you? I learned some Greek words from a teammate in highschool, but unfortunately, only about 5 of them can be used in polite company)

[JEC]

I am pretty certain that Achilleus lives in the US.

[Soldier]

Which explains clearly why it says "greece" under location...

[jeff]

As Soldier says.... I'm sure the mystery will be solved in due course...

[JEC]

Do you really think that he is the son of Peleus? He (most likely) is an experienced (and advanced) fencer who is likely a fan of the classics.

[jeff]

JEC - your description appears accurate to me. I was also under the impression that he lives in Greece (why? because he said so). Not relevant to anything in particular, but of interest.

[Inquartata]

Does this last line seem just really ridiculous considering that Bush is running on, 'If you elect Kerry, terrorists will kill you! Vote Bush.'

Though ironic, the latter does not however prove that his accusation is false, does it?

Why is it that you are so much more prepared to excuse contemptible political tactics on the part of one candidate than on that of the other? And more prepared to condemn it in the opposite proportions?

Clearly, the Bush tactic---your exagerrated and misattributed version of it aside---is deplorable. It is of course untrue IMO that Kerry is any less likely to defend this country to the utmost of his abilities than Bush, though it is permissible to question whether the methods he has said he would employ would be as effective. It is a fair charge that the Administration, especially Cheney, has attempted to establish the impression that Kerry would be weaker on terrorism worldwide and that this would erode safety here at home. It is a transparent attempt to instill fear in a sector of the electorate, to his own potential benefit.

But just as clearly, Kerry's predictions of a "January surprise" do constitute a similar and just as deplorable attempt to play on the fears of a certain sector of the electorate to his own benefit by making patently unsupportable accusations. Not unlike the intimations of a draft coming right around the corner...

Yet you seem to nod vigorously at the first and wave away the second as "ridiculous". Why is that?

[Maeve_Mari]

Do you really think that he is the son of Peleus? He (most likely) is an experienced (and advanced) fencer who is likely a fan of the classics.

Nereus and Doris had fifty daughters. Thetis is one of the Daughters of Nereus. As a group, they are called the Nereids. Thetis was given to Peleus (a mortal) for his undying devotion to the gods on Olympos. Thetis and Peleus had a magnificent son, Achilleus. The fate of Achilleus was known to Thetis. Simply put, Achilleus could return to his father and die happy yet forgotten, or, he could die at Troy and be remembered forever as a hero.

To protect her son in battle, Thetis provided Achilleus with armor made by Hephaistos, the smith of the gods. But during the war at Troy, Achilleus was angered by Agamemnon, he refused to fight. Instead, he gave his armor to his friend Patroklos. Patroklos was killed as he pressed the attack to the walls of Ilion. The most brutal fighting of the war was for the armor of Achilleus and the body of Patroklos. The disgrace to his friend’s body and the theft of his armor brought Achilleus into the battle, but not before Thetis could persuade Hephaistos to forge new armor for her, soon to be immortalized, son. When Achilleus strode into battle with his new armor, the Trojans fled in terror. His divine protection was obvious from the blaze of his armor and his divine lineage was also obvious from his beauty and his enormous strength. The Trojans who did not have the good sense or swift feet to run away, were killed. After Achilleus had had his revenge, Thetis led a procession of her sisters up from the depths to morn openly and to cast a divine mist over the body of Patroklos.

When Hephaistos was thrown from Olympos, Thetis and Eurynome healed him and gave him love and protection. The noble smith has never forgotten their kindness.

[achilleus]

Though ironic, the latter does not however prove that his accusation is false, does it?

Never said it did.

Why is it that you are so much more prepared to excuse contemptible political tactics on the part of one candidate than on that of the other? And more prepared to condemn it in the opposite proportions?

If you read my first post with an AP article, I condemned Kerry as well. Right after Bush made his original statement, Kerry attacked him. I thought, and still do, Kerry was wrong. Kerry then turned around and said the same thing. If you reread my original post, you'll see it doesn't favor one candidate or the other. They both said the same things, and took the chance to attack the other one, for something they said. I find it funny that they do this. I also find it funny that many people tried to take sides.

Clearly, the Bush tactic---your exagerrated and misattributed version of it aside---is deplorable.

Exagerrated and misattributed? You really think so? They've attempted to make people think that if he in were in charge, the terrorists would have already killed us. Cheney even said so. He retracted a day or two later, but still, the impression was made.

Although, I agree it is deplorable, in fact almost constitutes terrorism.

It is of course untrue IMO that Kerry is any less likely to defend this country to the utmost of his abilities than Bush, though it is permissible to question whether the methods he has said he would employ would be as effective. It is a fair charge that the Administration, especially Cheney, has attempted to establish the impression that Kerry would be weaker on terrorism worldwide and that this would erode safety here at home. It is a transparent attempt to instill fear in a sector of the electorate, to his own potential benefit.

I agree to an extent. It's one thing to talk about plans for services in the future, it's another to say you someone will kill you if you don't vote for me.

But just as clearly, Kerry's predictions of a "January surprise" do constitute a similar and just as deplorable attempt to play on the fears of a certain sector of the electorate to his own benefit by making patently unsupportable accusations. Not unlike the intimations of a draft coming right around the corner...

I agree to an extent again.

Yet you seem to nod vigorously at the first and wave away the second as "ridiculous". Why is that?

These articles are written about Bush soundbites. Since the debates he's been everywhere denouncing Kerry trying to regain lost ground. His criticisms make the news and provide good sound bites for articles. Kerry's comments are usually so long winded and confusing that they don't translate well.

Trust me, if they post something where I can point out the idiocy of Kerry, I will. And I have, the previous thread entitled Flip Flop for All.

Personally I Kerry is a idiot, and Bush a moron. I'm not really thrilled with voting for Kerry, but Bush's policies across the board are so destructive. In addition, Bush's administration is so divisive to the point where in the Country it's us (conservatives) agaisnt everyone else. So, I favor Kerry. I don't however think he's above criticism, reproach, or just plain laughing at him.

[Inquartata]

If you read my first post with an AP article, I condemned Kerry as well.

On this thread? Where? I see no "condemnation"...

Exagerrated and misattributed? You really think so?

Yes. Your version was "Bush is running on, 'If you elect Kerry, terrorists will kill you! Vote Bush.'" Which is exaggerated because no one has said that so pointedly, much less in those exact words, and misattributed, because AFAIK such statements have been limited to Cheney, and Bush himself has not said such things. ( He has said that he thinks he can keep us "safer" than Kerry, which I don't think amounts to the same thing as "'If you elect Kerry, terrorists will kill you!" )

[achilleus]

On this thread? Where? I see no "condemnation"...

I was referring to another thread entitled 'Flip Flop for All'.

This article however, was particularly about Bush's statement.

Therefore, so was my comment. When I see ridiculous comments by Kerry, trust me, I'll post 'em.

Yes. Your version was "Bush is running on, 'If you elect Kerry, terrorists will kill you! Vote Bush.'" Which is exaggerated because no one has said that so pointedly, much less in those exact words, and misattributed, because AFAIK such statements have been limited to Cheney, and Bush himself has not said such things. ( He has said that he thinks he can keep us "safer" than Kerry, which I don't think amounts to the same thing as "'If you elect Kerry, terrorists will kill you!" )

I'm sorry. My bad for not saying 'Bush's campaign' is based on...

Bush, himself, has stopped short of saying such statements, but his campaign and VP have used and defended such deplorable statements.

Bush, himself, has said exactly what you wrote above, which is acceptable. Although I wonder if he has rebuked Cheney or his campaign managers for saying stronger statements.

[Rogue]

Bush scare tactic:
Be affraid of terrorist
Be affraid of bowing to the UN
Be affraid of socialized medicine

Kerry scare tactic:
Social Security will be scraped, starving senior citizens
The global community doesn't like us
Enter popular environmental concern here and add Bush wants to kill you

Some scare tactics are based more in reality than others.

[achilleus]

Bush scare tactic:
Be affraid of terrorist
Be affraid of bowing to the UN
Be affraid of socialized medicine

Kerry scare tactic:
Social Security will be scraped, starving senior citizens
The global community doesn't like us
Enter popular environmental concern here and add Bush wants to kill you

Some scare tactics are based more in reality than others.

You know it's funny. Nixon's administration way back named the environment one of the top concerns of the nation. They realized back then, that ignoring the planet would be extremely harmful. Bush hasn't realized this, why shouldn't I be scared?

Bush has diverted funds out of Social Security with no solid plan to replace them, why shouldn't I be scared?

And Kerry hasn't said that Bush wants to kill me. Only overtax in favor of his buddies...

As for being scared of terrorism. I'm not. I have a greater chance of being run over by a car than I do of getting killed in terrorist attack.

[Soldier]

Especially once I figure out where you live...

And get a car...

And figure out a way to get it to Greece...

And get over my aversion to going to jail...

But then - you will rue the day!

[MANIACAL LAUGHTER]

[Rogue]

You know it's funny. Nixon's administration way back named the environment one of the top concerns of the nation. They realized back then, that ignoring the planet would be extremely harmful. Bush hasn't realized this, why shouldn't I be scared?

So Nixon is good when he agrees with your point of view.
Environmentally conscience is not the same as environmental worship. Environmental regulations should be based on hard science not flawed models that lead to flawed theory.

Bush has diverted funds out of Social Security with no solid plan to replace them, why shouldn't I be scared?

Sorry to inform you, but there is NO Social Security Fund. The money for SS comes from the General fund. So how could he divert funds from there?

And Kerry hasn't said that Bush wants to kill me. Only overtax in favor of his buddies...

The kill me was attached to the environmental point. "Bush's policies on the environment will poison the water, air, food..." or something like that. It is not a stretch to think if Bush makes things poisonous he wants to kill me.

As for being scared of terrorism. I'm not. I have a greater chance of being run over by a car than I do of getting killed in terrorist attack.

3,000 people in NYC, DC and Pennsylvania had those same odds.
If we don't fight the war now those odds will just go up. If the terrorist murderers think we are weak they will double their efforts to hit us again.

[jeff]

Sorry to inform you, but there is NO Social Security Fund. The money for SS comes from the General fund. So how could he divert funds from there?

Whoa - hold on there: that's factually incorrect. There certainly is a separate fund. In fact, unfortunately, SS money has been diverted into general funds to reduce shortfalls in revenue - supposedly a loan. A fact documented by people ranging from Pat Moynihan to Paul O'Neill. Sorry.

3,000 people in NYC, DC and Pennsylvania had those same odds.
If we don't fight the war now those odds will just go up. If the terrorist murderers think we are weak they will double their efforts to hit us again.

I'm going to address this point from a personal perspective, as it's only a stroke of luck that I'm not one of those 3,000. I had an office in WTC, and was a scheduled speaker at a conference being held on the 106th floor, fortunately not scheduled early in the conference. I know people who died So, I want us to win the war on terror real bad.
Yeah, showing weakness is a bad idea, but making a war where the terrorists didn't come from is worse.

[Rogue]

Whoa - hold on there: that's factually incorrect. There certainly is a separate fund. In fact, unfortunately, SS money has been diverted into general funds to reduce shortfalls in revenue - supposedly a loan. A fact documented by people ranging from Pat Moynihan to Paul O'Neill. Sorry.

Please read.
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1181
Paul O'neill says there are no assets in the fund.
http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/07-03-01.html
Ok, maybe there is something called a "fund" but it is empty and has been since before Bush.

[jeff]

Rogue - please sit down - I'm going to say something that will shock you!

Here it is: I agree with you. Okay, you can relax now.

Technically, there is a fund. Hence my previous post. Problem is: it's been looted. That's why I mentioned O'Neill as you did also. And you're quite right - it's been pillaged for a long time. Bilaterally, too. I went into this in great detail in the long Economics thread.