• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 2/8/18)
See more
See less

A VERY unscientific poll, Bush or Kerry?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Summershyne7:
    Well, that's not an oath that you'll vote for him. I would call it a statement, not an oath. It says you endorse him, or support him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I'm sorry, I just have to laugh. That is some of the best spin I have heard in quite some time! And unfortunately, I hear a lot.
    Congratulate me! My CANTER cutie is an honor student at Goofball University!

    Comment


    • Well, spin or not, it depends on what your definition of an oath is.

      To me, and oath is swearing by whatever you hold most dear, that you will do something. You take an oath that you will tell the truth, or that you will do the duties of your office.

      A statement is saying something that you saw, did, or believe. Even police call it "taking a statement." If Sonesta reads this, possibly she could give a legal definition of a statement, but I believe that this is at least in the ball park.
      Incredible Invisible Bookworm Clique!
      Proud Closet Canterer!
      "Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery."
      The Goblet of Fire

      Comment


      • OMG, it depends on what your definition is?!!!!

        You've been schooled by Clinton.
        See those flying monkeys? They work for me.

        Comment


        • Oh please, ANYTHING but that!
          Incredible Invisible Bookworm Clique!
          Proud Closet Canterer!
          "Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery."
          The Goblet of Fire

          Comment


          • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Well, that's not an oath that you'll vote for him. I would call it a statement, not an oath. It says you endorse him, or support him. I had heard that people who helped out in the Bush campaign in some way were given preferential access to Bush speeches, and why not? People are giving their time and money, so why not try to reward them in some way?
            <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

            Of course, that makes sense - who do you think those people are standing/sitting farther back on the stage - the volunteers. But my mother (here in ABQ) saw the Johns one week and Cheney was here the next - she wanted to hear what he had to say, and she wouldn't sign the paper, so she couldn't go in. Was she going to heckle (like the guys at the Kerry rally throwing flip flops?)- no! She just wanted to hear what the man had to say.
            Laura

            Comment


            • Well, regardless of your definition of oath, what the statement is saying is that you ENDORSE Bush, and even will allow your name to be used saying that you endorse him. (I'm not sure I understand what the point of that is.)

              Therefore, an undecided voter who wanted to go hear Bush speak would not be allowed to.

              Considering how close the election is, it's obvious that for as many people who hate Bush and would want to disrupt his speeches, there are just as many who hate Kerry and would want to disrupt his. Yet, only one campaign requires signing a statement of support before going to the speech.

              Comment


              • Seriously, though, when one does an exegesis, or word study, such as for a certain verb used in the Bible, the verb is used for different things. Therefore, the word has more than one meaning, and different people use the same word differently.
                "Oath," for example can have different meanings for different people, because they have different feelings about what an oath is, i.e. how seriously they take it, or if they believe that making oaths is wrong.
                "Door," however, means only one thing, even though it may take different shapes.
                Incredible Invisible Bookworm Clique!
                Proud Closet Canterer!
                "Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery."
                The Goblet of Fire

                Comment


                • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Summershyne7:

                  Some would say that W has his convictions and beliefs and that he acts accordingly, having thouroughly acknowledged his convicitons and beliefs before becoming an elected official.
                  These people would call this being a strong person, or whatever word is best for the opposite of "wishy-washy." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                  Yep, true.

                  There have been two articles recently, one in the New York Times and one in the Washington Post, on the leadership styles of both Bush and Kerry (respectively). I'll link to them both, although by this point you might have to pay to read them, as they are probably in the papers' archives.

                  Without a Doubt, by Ron Suskind, NYT Sunday magazine, 10/17/04

                  Crap, I can't find the WashPost one, but will keep looking.

                  Anyway, the NYT article was about Bush's reliance upon faith, not necessarily in the religious sense (that too, of course). This quote is particularly striking:

                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

                  The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                  Now, the article about Kerry was basically about his decision-making style (and I really wish I could find it, because it was quite even-handed). It said that he researches things exhaustively -- almost TOO exhaustively, because his aides are often buried in information. Kerry wants to know everything there is to know about a topic, and will play devil's advocate in meetings with his staff to play out all possible scenarios. But, at times, he can get bogged down in the details and perhaps lacks what people would cite as Bush's certainty.

                  Obviously there are drawbacks to both styles. At some point, you have to stop absorbing information and just decide yes or no. But if you don't absorb enough information, you risk making an uninformed decision.

                  It's really interesting how completely polar opposite these candidates are.

                  Comment


                  • Erin brings up a valid point: undecided voters couldn't go to speeches.
                    Well, I guess it's just undecided voters in general. I have questions.

                    My questions to undecided voters out there are this:

                    What causes your indecision?

                    What do you believe would help you make a decision?

                    Are there issues you are conscerned about that the canidates have not commented on?
                    Incredible Invisible Bookworm Clique!
                    Proud Closet Canterer!
                    "Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery."
                    The Goblet of Fire

                    Comment


                    • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Summershyne7:

                      "Oath," for example can have different meanings for different people, because they have different feelings about what an oath is, i.e. how seriously they take it, or if they believe that making oaths is wrong.
                      "Door," however, means only one thing, even though it may take different shapes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                      OK, but note that the "loyalty oath" term is what has been picked up in the press to describe it. What people actually SIGNED was a statement saying I support Bush/Cheney (in so many words).

                      Whether or not you call it an oath, it is what it is.

                      Comment


                      • Sorry, I get bogged down in semantics. It's my personal belief that words are probably more important than anyone realizes. People can say something, mean what they say, and have it interpreted in the opposite manner of which was intended (As we are so vibrantly experiencing on this board...). I have seen disasterous effects from this. So, in this aspect of it, I think that how we say something (both in words and manner) is just as, if not more, important as what we are saying.
                        Incredible Invisible Bookworm Clique!
                        Proud Closet Canterer!
                        "Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery."
                        The Goblet of Fire

                        Comment


                        • Yeah, Erin this was the quote I referred to a while ago. If you read the intent here, I believe this means that Bush and the people he surrounds himself with believe that they are on a mission from God. "...creating reality... history's actors..." Doesn't anyone else think this borders on megalomania? I think it is really spooky. He (W) needs to leave.
                          See those flying monkeys? They work for me.

                          Comment


                          • Megalomania? Depends on how you look at it. (here I go again... ) If Bush believed that he was on a mission from God, and that only he had one, I would define that as megalomania. For people who don't believe in God, or in the fact that God has a purpose and plan for everyone, I can see how mention of the phrase "mission from God" would be scary. If he believed (as he does) that everyone has a mission from God, along with himself, then he sees himself as an instrument being used, just like everybody else: the opposite of megalomania.
                            Incredible Invisible Bookworm Clique!
                            Proud Closet Canterer!
                            "Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery."
                            The Goblet of Fire

                            Comment


                            • It has more to do with a belief in free will than God's purpose or plan. You need to read the whole article and consider what was said. Bush and those who surround him believe that they are the exclusive executors of God's will. The rest of can sit around and watch their performance or get on board with them. That is megalomania.
                              See those flying monkeys? They work for me.

                              Comment


                              • bush scares me, if i had a patient that came to me and said that god spoke to them, that they acted on what god said to them, that they ginored reality and based decisions on god's direction and it resulted in people dying, i'd have to hold them on a 48 hour detention order. i don't normally detain everyone who hears god's voice, if they don't have the means or intent to do harm, i'd refer them for outpatient help.
                                i have to admit i am an atheist, but i know some very sane people that believe in god and i wouldn't commit everyone, lol. my husband is a pre vatican2 old time catholic, we are very tolerant of each others beliefs. we are direct opposite on some issues but manage to still respect and love each other.
                                A fat middle aged woman on a big headed horse.

                                Comment


                                • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DMK:
                                  It's also worth pointing out that its a minority of catholic bishops with this position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                                  nd you can go direct to the source. An informal survey of Vatican officals showed this <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Vatican officials and other experts noted that the Vatican was not monolithic, and that as a huge bureaucracy with competing interests, there was no unified view other than a deep interest in how the most powerful nation in the world exercised its power <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> and <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> While opposition to abortion is nonnegotiable for the church, that does not necessarily translate into uniform hope that President George W. Bush wins re-election. There are other issues that weigh heavily...

                                  Bush is overwhelmingly an unpopular figure," .... "They start from a great deal of skepticism about Bush." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

                                  Comment


                                  • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
                                    I had a long talk with a nice Muslim man about Islam and they view life differently, from their perspective since they are also the children of Abraham and to them this whole thing is just an argument of the estate of Abraham. As the first born son of Abraham Ishmael should have inherited and they have spent 5000 years trying to get his birthright back to him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                                    I very much doubt this since Islam was only founded a little over a thousand years ago.

                                    Comment


                                    • <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by: CessnaPilot
                                      Erin - Face it, we can both get as much information from sources we consder to be correct, it is still not going to change anyones mind, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                                      Actually evidence of mistakes, lies, or wrongdoing will change my mind. I do think that portraying Kerry as a hardened veteran capable of runnign a war with only 4 months of service is ridiculous. I think it's equally ridiculous for someone else to try and smear his record with unsubstianted evidence and rumours. Finally I thnk it's really ridiculous to fund something like the Swift Boat Veterans campaign and think no-one is going to find out Karl Rove, I'm looking at you.

                                      So basically the whole thing makes everyone look stupid and we'll never know the truth (although I did read an interview with the local villagers that was quite enlightening).

                                      Comment


                                      • FYI The "loyalty oath" comes form the Great Loyalty Oath crusade in Catch-22. It's the term that sprang immediately to my mind when I heard that Bush was requiring people to sign this and apparently most other people's too It has cultural meaning over and above the literal meaning.

                                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Summershyne7:
                                        Well, that's not an oath that you'll vote for him. I would call it a statement, not an oath. It says you endorse him, or support him. I had heard that people who helped out in the Bush campaign in some way were given preferential access to Bush speeches, and why not? People are giving their time and money, so why not try to reward them in some way? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
                                        1. THe president is an elected leader, he works FOR the people, ie me. If I want to go and hear him speak and I am first in line for tickets, I expect to be given them no quetion asked, as an American citizen. If I show up wearing a shirt that says "Protect our Civil Liberties" I don't expect to be arrested (teachers in Oregon last month)
                                        2. Campaign speeches are designed to raise support and spread awareness of the candidates position on issues. What is the point of only allowing people who already support you to listen to them? Keryy, Nader etc. encourage non-supporters to listen to them, they'd probably give their eye teeth for the chance to address a big group of Bush supporters. Bush, OTOH is afriad to address people who are not Republicans or to be unscripted in any way. That bothers me.
                                        3. How is it a reward to see someone campaigning for president speak? It should be a right. Maybe they give everyone beer at those Republican speeches

                                        Comment


                                        • I just want to say that Erin, DMK and J. Turner have said it best. What bothers me about so many Bush supporters is they don't realize WHAT they are really supporting. They are just supporting the Rep, be he good, bag or ugly!
                                          Beth Davidson
                                          Black Dog Farm Connemaras & Sport Horses
                                          http://blackdogconnemara.com
                                          visit my blog: http://ponyeventer.blogspot.com

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X