[kj] OT: Question for the Righties

The Exorcist killingjoke at theimmortalfool.com
Wed Sep 10 12:57:26 EDT 2008


I woke up, I bitched, I had a smoke and bitched then went to a client
and bitched, just got home writing emails
and bitched some more. :)

At 09:15 AM 9/10/2008, fluke fluke wrote:

>"Personally, when someone answers a impromptu, serious question

>smoothly and quickly I don't hear an honest person. I hear a

>prepared soundbite, a used car salesman. A person more interested in

>talking than listening. While someone who hesitates slightly or

>speaks somewhat haltingly to me comes across as thoughtful and honest."

>

> A person who is hesitant when they are speaking is usually being

> dishonest .

>Try it for yourself : Describe your today today in detail . Describe

>in as much detail as possible what you have done since your alarm

>went off this morning (Do it in your head) .

> O.K. Now do the same thing , but this time make a pack of lies

> up . Begin your explanation with : "I didn't go to bed last night

> because I fell asleep on the train on the way home............" ,

> now finish that off, making things up as you go along .

> You will find that in the second scenario, you will begin to be

> hesitant as you explain , this is because you have to think about

> what you are saying .

> Obamas hesitancy was because he was being insincere

>

>

>

>

>

>----------

>

>Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:15:43 -0700

>From: culturevirus at yahoo.com

>To: gathering at misera.net

>Subject: Re: [kj] OT: Question for the Righties

>

>

>This is how Obama typically appears in unscripted interviews and

>situations where he is speaking off the cuff. The difference between

>Obama and Bush is that when Obama does speak it is generally in

>complete sentences, using proper syntax and expressing coherent

>thoughts. I don't think Bush is half as stupid as his detractors

>make him out to be, but he is among the worst extemporaneous

>speakers I've seen. Surpassed only by certain infamous beauty

>pageant contestants.

>

>Obama wasn't asked when a baby becomes a "living being" he was asked

>"at what point does a baby gets human rights, in your view" (two

>very different questions). His answer to Pastor Warren was flippant

>without a doubt. But the explanation in the Stephanopoulos interview

>was much better and accurately reflects the deeply troubling nature

>of the question and the divide that exists within the Xian church

>regarding the issue. There is very little in the Scriptures for

>Xians to go on regarding the issue and there is a divide, although

>most err on the side of caution. The question of when the fetus

>becomes "a person" or receives "the soul" is a technical and

>intellectual question. One with profound theological implications.

>One that mankind has been pondering for a long time, hence the

>strongly divided positions on the issue.

>

>Personally, when someone answers a impromptu, serious question

>smoothly and quickly I don't hear an honest person. I hear a

>prepared soundbite, a used car salesman. A person more interested in

>talking than listening. While someone who hesitates slightly or

>speaks somewhat haltingly to me comes across as thoughtful and

>honest. Or that they are trying to be respectful to those who will

>hold contrary views and that they are framing the answer in a way

>that shows they understand their opponents viewpoint.

>

>I am culturevirus

>

>--- On Tue, 9/9/08, fluke fluke <fluke1 at live.co.uk> wrote:

>From: fluke fluke <fluke1 at live.co.uk>

>Subject: Re: [kj] OT: Question for the Righties

>To: "A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)" <gathering at misera.net>

>Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 3:30 AM

>

><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30&feature=related>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30&feature=related

>

>

>Going by this interview , Obama seems hesitant , stuttering and

>unsure of himself . He seems to have to think what he says before he

>says it , this is a common trait with people who aren't being

>honest. He is either trying to deceive the electorate because he

>isn't being honest , either that or he has trouble speaking

>coherently , either way, that makes him unfit to be President of any Country .

> He comes across as being insincere , like he is trying to sell

> himself, like he is saying what the electorate want to hear .

> He initially said that the issue of when a Baby becomes a living

> being was above his payscale , he admitted that he didn't have an

> answer, then he tried to justify his ignorance by getting technical

> and quasi intellectual .

> People dislike George Bush because they class him as being an

> idiot because of the way that he comes across on screen well sorry

> , but Obama comes across asn being even bigger idiot .

> Surely the U.S. can manage to find one coherent person to lead

> their Country ?

>

>

>

>

>

>----------

>

>From: vassifer at earthlink.net

>To: gathering at misera.net

>Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:48:58 -0400

>Subject: [kj] OT: Question for the Righties

>

>

>

>Serious question for the Neo-cons/McCain-supporters/Skeptics here:

>

>What *exactly* is so wrong with Obama? Why do you vilify him for a

>perceived lack of substance? How is he any less genuine than his opponents?

>

>Do tell. I'm all ears.

>

>Alex in NYC

>

>

>

>On Sep 8, 2008, at 6:37 PM, Karen Weil wrote:

>

>

>----------

>Try Facebook in Windows Live Messenger!

><http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354030/direct/01/>Try it Now!

>

>_______________________________________________

>

>Gathering mailing list

>

>Gathering at misera.net

>

>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering

>

>

>

>----------

>Try Facebook in Windows Live Messenger!

><http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354030/direct/01/>Try it Now!

>_______________________________________________

>Gathering mailing list

>Gathering at misera.net

>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering


Competition is a barbaric, insensitive ritual that reeks of social Darwinism.
We cannot allow the fittest to survive on our pages. Your loss is someone
else's gain, and your gain is someone else's loss. Therefore, losers contribute
to the society and winners take away from it. Being a winner is
unethical, while
a society of losers is happy and striving as a collective. In the
spirit of diversity,
inclusiveness, and collectivism our contests shall have no winners.
Everyone is declared a loser, which in our book means an ethical team player.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20080910/794b75b9/attachment.html>


More information about the Gathering mailing list