Bush accepts responsibility.

[achilleus]

We all might. But we all might like money to rain from the sky, too, and there's little point in complaining that it doesn't.

While we all would like money to rain, there are people who disagree with my statements...

You met Bush, shook his hand and were then able to judge his sincerity? Fine. OTOH to think one can do the same via television is, well, let's just say another matter entirely and leave it at that.

Watch Bush give speeches. He doesn't have that body posture or tone often. When talking about something he believes in, he's very upfront and forthright. It comes across in his posture. When drumming up support for the war, when talking about the evil of terrorism, when talking about his faith, etc...

Yet somehow, he when accepting responsiblity, something he's never done before, his posture becomes like that of a petulant child?

Sorry, his job includes public speaking and being in front of cameras. Something was amiss during the time that spoke those words. Not the rest of the speech, but those words.

Not at ALL the same thing, really.

Did you read my initial post? Did I claim he lied?

But you still feel that you possess the ability to divine his thoughts, feelings, motives and intentions? That you can not only see what he has done but what he has meant by it?

Nope. I don't possess such an ability. I hear his words, see his actions which often contradict his words, and can judge for myself after that.

On this at least we can agree.

Yup. Most likely for different reasons. Me thinking that his supporters are fooling themselves, while his detractors are paying attention...

[Inquartata]

While we all would like money to rain, there are people who disagree with my statements...

There are indeed.

Sorry, his job includes public speaking and being in front of cameras. Something was amiss during the time that spoke those words. Not the rest of the speech, but those words.

Sorry, it still smacks a bit much of seeing what you expect to see, hearing what you think you're going to hear. You want to find evidence of insincerity

because you believe he's insincere. Small wonder you think you have found it.

Nope. I don't possess such an ability. I hear his words, see his actions which often contradict his words, and can judge for myself after that.

And you have no doubts of the accuracy of your own subjective impressions about a performance watched on television?

Yup. Most likely for different reasons. Me thinking that his supporters are fooling themselves, while his detractors are paying attention...

Paying attention to their own existing emotional opinions, very likely.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

2) And...you have a magic beanie which enables you to scry out the degree of "sincerity" in a televised speech?

This is what bothers me most about some of Bush's critics: not that they dislike his policies or even him, but that they think that they know what his thoughts, feelings and motives are as well...they think they possess some special ability to peer into his ( doubtless black ) heart and ( doubtless vacuous ) mind. All through transmitted television images---or worse, printed transcripts.

A large portion of the times when I dislike something from Bush, it is that I dislike the openly stated opinion, or what is claimed as good by his supporters. No need for any "peer inside a mind" technique there.

That said, I sometimes see things where his opponents say under-the-belt stuff against him. I have several times thought about posting to his defense in such situations, but everytime Inq, Slim, or someone else has beaten me to it!


On the "they think that they know what his thoughts, feelings and motives are as well" comment: As a fencing referee, especially in the ROW weapons, one should have some ability to gauge what the fencer´s thoughts and motives are. When it comes to black-carding for revengeful fencing, gauging feelings also comes into play. So, some ability to do just that is to be expected of a fencer.


Best of luck to those affected.

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

A large portion of the times when I dislike something from Bush, it is that I dislike the openly stated opinion, or what is claimed as good by his supporters. No need for any "peer inside a mind" technique there.

I have no quarrel with that sort of disagreement. I mislike some of the things he has done and said myself. It's the attribution to the policies of motives not in evidence that leaves me shaking my head. It isn't even necessary to the validity of a dislike of a policy. ( It DOES have the effect, intended or not, of poisoning the well. Characterize a person often enough as "insincere" or "a liar" or what have you, and one no longer needs address a policy on its merits---only remind that it's coming from the poisoned well so it must be bad a priori. )

[esskreemr]

I have no quarrel with that sort of disagreement. I mislike some of the things he has done and said myself. It's the attribution to the policies of motives not in evidence that leaves me shaking my head. It isn't even necessary to the validity of a dislike of a policy. ( It DOES have the effect, intended or not, of poisoning the well. Characterize a person often enough as "insincere" or "a liar" or what have you, and one no longer needs address a policy on its merits---only remind that it's coming from the poisoned well so it must be bad a priori. )

Inference of motive is a common human characteristic. Without actually being there, we automatically assume certain thought processes based on the external evidence. This, of course, is 'tainted' by our biases and personal characteristics. Vicarious though it may be, it's the best we have. In addition, not only are inferences of motive made based on the actions of the individual (or individuals) in question, we also tend to tack on the behaviors, statements, and actions of groups with which the individuals are associated.

In addition to the myriad of 'filters' that are applied, we also have a tendency referred as blunting. This is a technique of only accepting information to which you are receptive.

Does this create a 100% accurate picture of the inner workings of a President's thought process? No, but it makes for interesting discussion.

[Inquartata]

Inference of motive is a common human characteristic. Without actually being there, we automatically assume certain thought processes based on the external evidence. This, of course, is 'tainted' by our biases and personal characteristics. Vicarious though it may be, it's the best we have.

No. Evidence is the best we have. It's why we hold trials ( including assessments of intent ) in the courtroom, not in the chat room.

Cheating on one's spouse is also a common human practice. Ubiquity is no measure of nobility. Nor does it rehabilitate a bad practice.

In addition to the myriad of 'filters' that are applied, we also have a tendency referred as blunting. This is a technique of only accepting information to which you are receptive.

Yes. But we should strive to rise above our dysfunctional tendencies, should we not?

Does this create a 100% accurate picture of the inner workings of a President's thought process? No, but it makes for interesting discussion.

Or at least a vehement one.

[ReverseLunge]

Folks, I have heard just about enough Bush-bashing from these commie no-goods here and in New Orleans who are too ungrateful to see the many things that Bush has done for them. The President ended his five week vacation early to go help them out and they are being very rude to him. Perhaps these refugees don't understand what it is like to sacrifice but President Bush made the ultimate sacrifice when he had to put his guitar down in Colorado and get on an airplane and spent a few hours of his time flying around the disaster zone and taking token photographs with crying black women.

These hurricane survivors could learn a thing or two from our ruler who is always a perfect example of Christian Republican morals. I dare them to give up something they like for even one day.

[epeeisky]

Folks, I have heard just about enough Bush-bashing from these commie no-goods

Are they commies just because they dont agree with you? Cause I don't think they are advocating perfect equality or atheism.

Here and in New Orleans who are too ungrateful to see the many things that Bush has done for them.

He has done something for them?

The President ended his five week vacation early to go help them out and they are being very rude to him.

Yes, poor Bush ended his five week vacation 2 days early when he should of ended it a week early and actualy got some work done.

Perhaps these refugees don't understand what it is like to sacrifice but President Bush made the ultimate sacrifice when he had to put his guitar down in Colorado and get on an airplane and spent a few hours of his time flying around the disaster zone and taking token photographs with crying black women.

I really hope that was sarcasim. If not then you don't know the true meaning of the word sacrifice.

These hurricane survivors could learn a thing or two from our ruler who is always a perfect example of Christian Republican morals. I dare them to give up something they like for even one day.

I dindn't know a former crackhead/alcoholic that beat his wife and kills thousands of innocent people is a Christian Republican Role model. They have given up many things; there homes, their cities, their livelyhoods for over a month so I think they know what it means to sacrifice.