June 29, 2004

Wrose Than Hilter!!1!!11!11

Von of Obsidian Wings catches a Godwin's Law violation in progress:

Obsidian Wings: Godwin's law in Action.: What to say about the Bush campaign's latest ad, "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed"? Silly? Sure. Least-effective campaign ad ever? Probably? So bad that it's destined to be screened at midnight on college campuses around the world? Very likely. The first shot in the ad is a statement that Kerry disagrees with every statement that follows in the ad. Promising start. The ad then gives its title: "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Wild-eyed." Of course, that can't be true because, as the ad itself advised us mere seconds before, Kerry has denounced each and every member of his puported "coalition."

It occurs to me here that perhaps Bush defines "coalition" differently from the rest of us. But I digress. Back to the ad.

Next comes a parade of enraged speakers: Al Gore, Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and Kerry. Wait. Read that again. Al Gore, Hitle, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and Kerry. Hitler being, of course, a well-known lover of France (you always hurt the ones you love, you know) and therefore, by extension, a Kerry supporter. Or something like that.

Actually, the Hitler footage is attributed to "wild-eyed" supporter Move-on.org, which had received a couple Bush=Hitler videos during its competition. Maybe you read something about it somewhere in the blogosphere. Say, if you were alive and online. While I agree Move-on.org is "wild-eyed," it might be worth noting here that Move-on didn't create the Bush=Hitler ads and, in fact, expressly denounced them. So it's hard to attribute the ads to Move-on -- much less Kerry, who (as the ad dutifully notes) denounced Move-on and the ads as Move-on was denouncing the ads. But maybe a denouncement of a denouncing party is in fact an acceptance. Or something like that. This is heady rubber-glue-magic-force-field logic, you see, and I don't pretend to be an expert.

Or better yet, just go read Jacob Weisberg in Slate:

What moron came up with this idea? What are they smoking in Karl Rove's office? C'mon, Will. This ad is the campaign equivalent of The Producers—an idea so egregiously tasteless and stupid that it might just succeed as camp.

Yes, indeed.

I'm not sure if it would be possible for the Bush folks to try harder to drive me away from them. I should be naturally sympathetic: mostly pro-life, pro-defense, leans Scalia on Constitutional issues, dedicated free trader, fan of smallish government, etc. But, every time I begin to consider Bush again either he or someone associated with him does something so outrageously stupid that I feel ashamed that I ever harbored the thought. Bush is utterly unbelievable. He is probably the worst President since Coolidge -- after all, Nixon was a bona fide foreign policy hit.

But you know the sad thing? On some days -- increasingly rare days, yes -- I still think that Bush is probably better for the job than Kerry.

Two points. First, just what is supposed to be wrong with Calvin Coolidge? What did he ever do that bad to be ranked below George W. Bush? I think Coolidge is well above Bush II. I think Bush II is the worst president since James Buchanan. (And I'm a moderate: George Akerlof thinks Bush II is worst president ever, and George Akerlof has a Nobel Prize.)

Second, are we sure that this is a real Bush-Cheney advertisement? The Eleven-Year-Old saw it first, and her immediate conclusion was that some Democratic hacker had gotten into the Bush-Cheney website. The mainstream Democratic politicians--Gore, Dean, Gephardt, Kerry--come across as angry, yes, but as angry for good reasons: they talk about very bad things that George W. Bush has done. And then come the shots of Hitler: completely unexpected and grossly inappropriate for the context, the (intended) message that Kerry supporters compare Bush to HItler doesn't come through to her at all; what does come through is that (a) Democrats make cogent points that (b) the Bush campaign thinks are somehow reminiscent of Hitler.

The Eleven-Year-Old has a very good point.

Posted by DeLong at June 29, 2004 01:43 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post
Comments

Yes, the ad's real. And real [sic] dumb.

BTW, you need to close an ital tag...

Posted by: NTodd on June 29, 2004 01:58 PM

____

Jimminny Cricket it's hard to keep up with the Elven year old today!

Posted by: calmo on June 29, 2004 01:59 PM

____

The funny thing is that this Bush-Cheney ad summarizes some of the Democrat's best points:

Gore noting Bush lied to get us into Iraq (he did).

Gephardt noting Bush is a miserable failure (he is).

Dean talking about taking our country back (from the special interests - who finance all these Bush-Cheney ads).

Posted by: Harold McClure on June 29, 2004 02:01 PM

____

Maybe it is just a trend in advertising. Whenever I watch TV with my parents, they keep asking, "What is that ad selling?" Usually it is beer or automobiles even though it looks like they are selling sex.

The questions to ask are, "What are they selling to whom?"

If the targets understand the ad, then maybe it is effective.

Of course, no one wants their ad to annoy potential customers.

Posted by: bakho on June 29, 2004 02:02 PM

____

As a commentator on Needlenose pointed out the ad is even worse than that. The only shots of Bush II that are shown are ones that have him with his arm raised - rather reminiscent of the infamous Seig Heil pose of the Hitler salute. So the ad shows a bunch of Democrats being angry for good reasons AND shows Bush looking like Hitler. I was confused myself and couldn't believe it wasn't a Democratic attack ad at first.

Posted by: oldman on June 29, 2004 02:16 PM

____

"Two points. First, just what is supposed to be wrong with Calvin Coolidge?"

I like to blame him for the Depression. It's my contrarian nature -- oh, yeah, and the fact that he helped to create the structural defects that led directly to the Great Depression. (Plus he did absolutely squat while folks were lynching other folks in my home state. And disengagement from Europe wasn't the brightest idea. Indeed, disengagement from everything probably wasn't a good idea either.)

BTW, your cut and paste job has introduced a couple brand-new typos in my post! An outrage! Only I get to put typos in my posts -- like the time I chided someone for using "bad grammer [sic]". ;-)

(BTW, your blog has been on my shortlist of reads for quite some time.)

Posted by: von on June 29, 2004 02:36 PM

____

Kerry is taking the high road and letting others do the Bush Bashing. Clever move and Kerry is getting away with it. The Bush ad is an attempt to tie Kerry to more strident voices. Lacking a good image of the amorphous MoveOn, they went with Hitler. (bad call) They failed to delete the photos of Bush from the MoveOn clip so Bush appears along with the other angry men. Also not a good idea to mix in a picture of Bush at the end. Bushies should have used an icon like George Washington and asked why Bush Bashers don't have more respect for the office of president.

If you watch the BushAd with the sound off, it is clear the Bushies are comparing the Democrats to Hitler. Their use of sound gives them deniability.

It reminds me of a routine that Chris Rock did a few years back. Rock had a fake campaign of Bill Bradley against Tree Rollins.

One fake ad used the story:

Bill Bradley was an NBA All-Star.
Tree Rollins was never an NBA All-Star.
Adolph Hitler was never an NBA All-Star either.
The piece finished with a side by side pictures of Tree Rollins and Hitler.

The logic was hilarious.

Posted by: bakho on June 29, 2004 02:37 PM

____

------------------BLUTO LIVES---------------------

Bush Jr is what he is as a reaction to his Cold Warrior deficit fighting father. Think of him as one of the guys from 'Animal House', grown up and having fun. Why shouldn't he spend hundreds or billions of our dollars playing games. What are we going to do about it?
Oh yeah, the idea of any Republican as a deficit fighter may amuse you, but Bush Sr. was. He started cutting the huge Reagan deficits as soon as he got in. Clinton just continued that policy until they turned into surpluses.

Posted by: walter willis on June 29, 2004 02:37 PM

____

Sorry -this ad captures the Daytona 500 demographic profile ( no intention to slur those who are fans of this event) which we have on no less an authority than CNN, that it is the core support for the Republican Party.
I liken the strategy to falling back to the center when one is taking a beating at the peripheries. Rallying around ( still no offence to those who are fans of the event) a solid base may seem counter-intuitive when you are being kicked in the teeth by a film like Fahrenheit, but trust me: this is just a feint.
Expect them to capture the PGA demographic slice next. ( still no offence to those that are fans of that event).
Nah. The 11 yr old has it.

Posted by: calmo on June 29, 2004 02:40 PM

____

walter willis wrote, "Oh yeah, the idea of any Republican as a deficit fighter may amuse you, but Bush Sr. was. He started cutting the huge Reagan deficits as soon as he got in."

My impression is that deficits were controlled after the implementation of the Budget Enforcement Act (1990), which was a compromise between Bush I and the Congressional Democrats. If so, the credit should be split.

Posted by: liberal on June 29, 2004 03:15 PM

____

The ad was sent out within an email, and the text of the email ended with this:

"Is this the Democratic Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who reassured his countrymen we have nothing to fear but fear itself? No. This is John Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed, who have nothing to offer but fear-mongering."

So, as I said in one of my posts, we got yer fear mongering right here, bub, a la Bush in October 2002:

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Nuclear weapons were of course the least valid argument Bush et al could have made.

Fear-mongering. Pheh.

Posted by: Frank on June 29, 2004 03:21 PM

____

Franklin Pierce might have also been worse. But at least when he tried to start a war with Spain over Cuba, he was thwarted.

Posted by: Richard Green on June 29, 2004 03:24 PM

____

Yes, the ad is very real. I saw Bush campaign advisor Terry Holt interviewed last night. He claimed (I'm paraphrasing) that it was entirely appropriate to compare the "shrill rhetoric" of the Democrats to that of Hitler.

What's truly amazing about this is that MoveOn.org did not produce the original advertisement, and when they learned it was on their website they removed it immediately and apologized for it. Now the Bush campaign has taken that footage and has turned it around on the Democrats. I don't know why we bother having standards when fighting the right-wing slime machine. If one of their leaders, Dick "Go F*** Yourself" Cheney, can't even apologize for inappropriate language on the Senate floor, I don't see why we should expect any better of the underlings.

Posted by: Brad Reed on June 29, 2004 04:00 PM

____

The concept of Geoge Bush as Hitler has always struck me as absurd on its face. Hitler, after all, was a decorated veteran.

Posted by: MJB on June 29, 2004 04:44 PM

____

Comparing Democrats to Hitler felt good, so they did it.

Posted by: Kuas on June 29, 2004 05:26 PM

____

Wold love to hear from some marketing and campaign experts on the effectiveness of this ad. I can't imagine this was just a rash act by the Bush campaign. The Bushies must be worried about wobbly feet in the traditional right, and perhaps this ad is actually effective in preventing them from drifting away as they see Iraq going bad and the economy still not strong. That has to be measured against the risk of offending those swing voters in the middle who might get turned off by the hatefulness. Any experts out there?

Posted by: paulo on June 29, 2004 05:33 PM

____

It is becoming more and more apparent that the upcoming election marks a major shift in campaign strategies. Up until 2000 both parties could reliably count on ~40% support in their respective corners and were dishing it out over the 20% swing voters in the middle (the soccer moms, etc.). But the ever-decreasing voter turnout obviously made Karl Rove go for a pure partisan play: It is perfectly fine to leave the eroding moderate core to the Democrats because there are enough (current) non-voters on the radical fringe that can be cowed into action if the message is just shrill enough.

Posted by: ogmb on June 29, 2004 05:52 PM

____

The ad is so bad that, to me, it looks like an attack against Bush.

What I wonder is, could the person that submitted the ad sue the Republican Party for copyright infringement?

I saw Lisa Myers talking about the ad on TV last night and she said that the ad was used "briefly" on the Moveon.org site. She didn't bother to clarify that the ad was removed after an outcry from Republicans, and was later stolen by them.

The story went on to talk about how both sides have used analogies to Hitler, including Al Gore talking about brownshirts the other day. The problem is, an analogy of Bush with Hitler is seemingly very accurate.

Posted by: pol on June 29, 2004 05:58 PM

____

Is it possible that they have focus-grouped this thing and found that it does work on voters who've never heard any words against the Bush administration?

Posted by: Randolph Fritz on June 29, 2004 06:05 PM

____

"an analogy of Bush with Hitler is seemingly very accurate."

I was about to post this yesterday, but the Bushitler analogy is not applicable because if GWB outlawed the Democratic party today and removed and detained all of its office holders, functionaries and appointees the remaining members in the Constitutional institutions would lack the guts to stop him. So we still live in a democracy solely because Bush is not Hitler.

Posted by: ogmb on June 29, 2004 06:12 PM

____

Hmmm. I think your eleven year old me know more than you do on this. Try her (or him) on this

http://objective.jesussave.us/adskidz.html

Posted by: CSTAR on June 29, 2004 06:15 PM

____

Hmmm. I think your eleven year old me know more than you do on this. Try her (or him) on this

http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

Posted by: CSTAR on June 29, 2004 06:15 PM

____

Bush worse than Harding? Both governed as hands off as possible. The difference I guess is that Harding had less to deal with than Bush does so his poor performance didn't lead to all the problems Bush's has.

Posted by: Rob on June 29, 2004 06:18 PM

____

No, Warren G. Harding was Ronald W. Reagan. We haven't had a leader like George W. Bush since George William Frederick.

Posted by: MarkC on June 29, 2004 06:42 PM

____

When I viewed the Hitler ad, I was struck by the notion that since President Bush is in the line up, perhaps we were getting a glimpse of the future. But, then it occurred to me that voters will surely be able to finger the really dangerous character in the line up. Right?

Posted by: bncthor on June 29, 2004 06:56 PM

____

I'd be surprised if the ad is ever broadcast as an ad, and I doubt it was created to be used that way. Your eleven-year old's reaction to the whole incoherent mess is right to the point that it doesn't make sense as a pro Bush/Cheney ad -- watched in its entirety the thing produces bemused headscratching.

I think putting it on the website is just to stir things up, get people screaming on both sides, and get people like NBC to play snippets of Gore, Moore et al looking angry and reporting that supporters of Kerry compared Bush to Hitler. It's to milk the "Gore is insane" coverage last week, with the digital Brown Shirts, etc. and discredit Moore's film at the same time. The Bush operation has been good at feeding fake controversies to the press with their preferred story lines. And the Dems have risen to the bait.

Posted by: Lady C on June 29, 2004 07:02 PM

____

When I saw the ad I had to save it (which you can't do from the georgebush site).

Here is a direct link to the ad

http://real.streamtoyou.com/gwb/KCOWE_medium.mov

which I found at

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/33950#692125

Posted by: MonkeyBoy on June 29, 2004 07:31 PM

____

Doesn't the ad say "Sponsored by MoveOn.org", or some such, while the footage of Hitler is being shown? Couldn't they be sued for libel?

Posted by: Jeff Lawson on June 29, 2004 10:11 PM

____

Those making a Bush-Hitler analogy should stop because:

1) You automatically lose when you compare someone to Hitler. See Godwin's law.

2) Bush is really more analogous to Kaiser Wilhelm II. Their stories are the same. Idiot boy-emperor takes power, doesn't listen to good advice, rushes to unnecessary and unwinnable war, creates a disaster, dies in exile in Belgium. (OK, the last part probably won't happen to Bush, but I can hope, can't I?)

Posted by: rps on June 29, 2004 10:37 PM

____

"Bush is really more analogous to Kaiser Wilhelm II."

Good call. It would have even more punch if you had written "George Bush II. is really more analogous to Kaiser Wilhelm II."

Posted by: ogmb on June 30, 2004 12:16 AM

____

I probably would have entertained the eleven year old's theory (and it is a pretty entertaining theory at that) until I saw this:
Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel had no comment on the box office numbers, but suggested that those wanting another view visit www.GeorgeWBush.com and see a compilation of clips titled "Kerry Coalition of the Wild-Eyed." In general, the campaign has said it did not want to take on Moore because it would lend him credibility.

Posted by: julia on June 30, 2004 05:33 AM

____

A note on the Hitler-Bush ads on Moveon.org.

Someone on Freerepublic.com claimed credit for one of the ads.

Said that he sent it in, and dropped a dime on the contest.

FR.com has been scrubbed of this though.

Posted by: Matthew Saroff on June 30, 2004 07:50 AM

____

" it might be worth noting here that Move-on didn't create the Bush=Hitler ads and, in fact, expressly denounced them."

and:

"The problem is, an analogy of Bush with Hitler is seemingly very accurate."

I've said it before, I just can't get enough of the absolute, 100%, lack of self-awareness here.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 30, 2004 07:55 AM

____

Forget if Bush is the worst President ever. Can Cheney actually overcome the awesome 1-2 punch of Burr and Agnew to become the worst Vice-President ever?

Posted by: Mac Thomason on June 30, 2004 08:07 AM

____

Patrick Sullivan,

"I've said it before, I just can't get enough of the absolute, 100%, lack of self-awareness here."

That was two different people, Patrick.

Posted by: Bernard Yomtov on June 30, 2004 08:09 AM

____

My first reaction to the ad was laughing out loud at the ending. It was hard to work up indignation because it was so stupid...I mean, the last shot of Bush as optimist looked sooo...sooo...chimpy.

The contrast wasn't good, useful or particularly artful. The ad looked like some smart aleck high school kid put it together.

Posted by: i ain't telling on June 30, 2004 09:00 AM

____

> That was two different people, Patrick.

Nice try, but everyone knows that we "Bush haters" are cultists who share a single group personality and take marching orders twice a week from coded messages embedded in Krugman's NYT columns.

Anyway, I don't see the inherent contradiction in "Move-On disavows Bush=Hitler as an appropriate ad message, but that doesn't mean Bush isn't like Hitler." (I'm not saying Bush *is* like Hitler, just that I don't see the contradiction.)

BTW, the part that worries me is what if this ad really is effective? All sniping aside, its intended audience is not Brad DeLong's blog readers. I wouldn't have pegged "Who Let The Dogs Out" for a hit single either, so what do I know? I'd need to see the statistics before laughing too hard about the ad. Bush's policy is usually driven by blind ideology, but Rove's political methods have an empirical basis and as a result tend to be more successful.

Posted by: Paul Callahan on June 30, 2004 09:14 AM

____

In case you missed it:

http://www.pleasevote.com/

Posted by: walons on June 30, 2004 09:54 AM

____

Brad, Calvin Coolidge is guilty of writing very, very bad poetry about Vermont, which was printed for no reason on the front page of the New York Times. I would provide a link except that, oddly, no one on the Internet has seen fit to commemorate this horrible national crime.

Posted by: Eli on June 30, 2004 10:01 AM

____

Patrick R. Sullivan might garner a bit more respect here if he responded to our Host's non-political posts, such as the one above on Quiche, or the one below on David Hume. It is hard to take seriously people whose interests are limited to assaulting the "left", we poor saps so sadly lacking in self-awareness.

Posted by: masaccio on June 30, 2004 10:41 AM

____

So Pat is after 'more respect', masaccio?
Geez ...just when I think I'm finally get fair and balanced, m smokes with this.
See, it would never cross my mind to proselytize...Are you a JW?
Really? You think Pat is ready for the jump to the Quiche thread?
I don't know whether to dock you crediblity points or give you the Nobel Peace Prize, m.

Posted by: calmo on June 30, 2004 11:55 AM

____

It's a *fallacy of authority* to imply that George Akerolof's Nobel Prize validates the economist's categorization of the Bush presidency as the worst ever. His expertise certainly justifies his stance on economics issues, but why exactly does Akerlof's Nobel Prize mean his foreign, social, and environmental policy views have merit?

Posted by: John on June 30, 2004 11:57 AM

____

Maybe he thinks Bush's economic policies are the worst ever. Which they are.

Posted by: Basharov on June 30, 2004 03:52 PM

____

Buchanan!! Letting the South secceed? What is so egregious about that?

Lincoln is the one who started the civil war resulting in economic collapse of both countries and the deaths of 700,000 men in violation of the US Constitution. All this to change the interpretation of the constitution and marginally affect the rights of Blacks, but not their standard of living. Buchanan in comparison was a saint. How can you suggest any US president was worse than Lincoln - especially Buchanan!? GW Bush is obviously the worst president since Lincoln, but Lincoln is clearly the worst.

Posted by: Joe on July 1, 2004 07:27 AM

____

Buchanan!! Letting the South secede? What is so egregious about that?

Lincoln is the one who started the civil war resulting in economic collapse of both countries and the deaths of 700,000 men in violation of the US Constitution. All this to change the interpretation of the constitution and marginally affect the rights of Blacks, but not their standard of living. Buchanan in comparison was a saint. How can you suggest any US president was worse than Lincoln - especially Buchanan!? GW Bush is obviously the worst president since Lincoln, but Lincoln is clearly the worst.

Posted by: Joe on July 1, 2004 07:30 AM

____

Buchanan!! Letting the South secede? What is so egregious about that?

Lincoln is the one who started the civil war resulting in economic collapse of both countries and the deaths of 700,000 men in violation of the US Constitution. All this to change the interpretation of the constitution and marginally affect the rights of Blacks, but not their standard of living. Buchanan in comparison was a saint. How can you suggest any US president was worse than Lincoln - especially Buchanan!? GW Bush is obviously the worst president since Lincoln, but Lincoln is clearly the worst.

By the way, if the Conferderacy still existed then in the United States people like GW Bush never could get elected. The US would be much better off today without the South.

Posted by: Joe on July 1, 2004 07:31 AM

____

First, Bernard, I didn't say it was the same person who wrote both quotes. Second:

"Anyway, I don't see the inherent contradiction in 'Move-On disavows Bush=Hitler as an appropriate ad message, but that doesn't mean Bush isn't like Hitler.' (I'm not saying Bush *is* like Hitler, just that I don't see the contradiction.)"

I rest my case.

Btw, since my welfare is of such interest to the motley crew here, the worst quiche I've ever eaten was one I bought in Strassbourg. And given how easy they are to make, that was an accomplishment;

Dice a pkg of luncheon ham, a half pound of shredded cheese dusted with flour, chop half an onion, mix three beaten eggs with 8 oz of half and half, season with salt, pepper, and nutmeg. Put all together in a frozen pie crust, and bake for 40 minutes.

Bon appetit.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on July 1, 2004 08:55 AM

____

Patrick Sullivan wrote:

> First, Bernard, I didn't say it was the same person who wrote both quotes.

True. If you had, it would have made it even more obvious that your example was inadequate to support your claim that people on the board lack "self awareness."

> I rest my case.

Really? Care to explain the contradiction? (I'm probably the last one to read this board, but I'll go ahead anyway). In case it flew by too fast the first time:

(1) A point can be too offensive to use in an ad--either for reasons of civility or simply because offending people tends to undermine the ad's persuasiveness.
(2) Despite that, the point can still have some validity.
(3) I can make observations (1) and (2) without agreeing with the point in question.

Posted by: Paul Callahan on July 1, 2004 03:09 PM

____

Yeah. Maybe, but what about his quiche? You see anything fishy with that?

Posted by: calmo on July 2, 2004 12:54 PM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil on July 6, 2004 02:05 PM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil uk on July 6, 2004 10:35 PM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil uk on July 8, 2004 02:41 PM

____

Avarus animus nullo satiatur lucro - A greedy mind is satisfied with no (amount of) gain

Posted by: pee videos on July 8, 2004 07:30 PM

____

Get it up mate, it's fun!

Posted by: Viagra on July 8, 2004 08:20 PM

____

Non sibi sed patriae! - Not for self, but country (US Navy Motto)

Posted by: gay twin brothers on July 10, 2004 05:00 PM

____

This will get yours up again, dude!

Posted by: Viagra on July 12, 2004 03:44 AM

____

Muppets love Viagra!

Posted by: Viagra UK on July 14, 2004 03:24 AM

____

Hire a car to feel higher!

Posted by: Car hire on July 20, 2004 05:07 PM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil on July 23, 2004 07:49 PM

____

What a cool blog!

Posted by: Kreditkarten on July 27, 2004 10:14 AM

____

Reading pages 1486/7/8/9 of the Uranti Book that deals with political sovereignty it came across to me that while those who accept this book for the very good reasons that what is on offer sounds the answer to all our problems, there is a price to pay. This price is to surrender ones sovereignty, personal and collectively via the democratic process. In other words in exchange you body and soul the intermediaries between God and man will take over all our responsibilities. No more war etc etc.
I like what it offers but I can't escape the feeling that it is a deception.

Posted by: Graham Taylor on August 15, 2004 05:43 AM

____

Reading pages 1486/7/8/9 of the Uranti Book that deals with political sovereignty it came across to me that while those who accept this book for the very good reasons that what is on offer sounds the answer to all our problems, there is a price to pay. This price is to surrender ones sovereignty, personal and collectively via the democratic process. In other words in exchange for your body and soul the intermediaries between God and man will take over all our responsibilities. No more war etc etc.
I like what it offers but I can't escape the feeling that it is a deception.

Posted by: Graham Taylor on August 15, 2004 05:45 AM

____

Pages 1487/8/9 of the Urantia Book (5) "Political sovereignty" seems to imply a "World government" this I did not like, for it means surrendering national sovereignty, bye bye democracy etc. However...
Pages 1490/1 (6) "Law, Liberty, and sovereignty" goes on to qualify this. Page 1491 lines 12 and 13 "Local affairs will be handled by local governments; national affairs, by national governments; international affairs will be administer by global government". Therefore "Global government" tends to mislead, "federal (global) government" says it better I think. The book goes on to explain that this "global (federal) government will in fact be a "Global peacekeeping force" made up of mortal men and angels of different ranks.
So what do I see? An expanded "global" role for Nato, the H.Q. of which is the Pentagon and the Commander, the President of the United States. This "World government is in fact constructed in accordance with the American constitution, a constitution brought to the world by the Foundling Fathers.

Posted by: Graham Taylor on August 17, 2004 05:31 AM

____

Pages 1487/8/9 of the Urantia Book (5) "Political sovereignty" seems to imply a "World government" this I did not like, for it means surrendering national sovereignty, bye bye democracy etc. However...
Pages 1490/1 (6) "Law, Liberty, and sovereignty" goes on to qualify this. Page 1491 lines 12 and 13 "Local affairs will be handled by local governments; national affairs, by national governments; international affairs will be administer by global government". Therefore "Global government" tends to mislead, "federal (global) government" says it better I think. The book goes on to explain that this "global (federal) government will in fact be a "Global peacekeeping force" made up of mortal men and angels of different ranks.
So what do I see? An expanded "global" role for Nato, the H.Q. of which is the Pentagon and the Commander, the President of the United States. This "World government is in fact constructed in accordance with the American constitution, a constitution brought to the world by the Foundling Fathers.

Posted by: Graham Taylor on August 17, 2004 05:33 AM

____

Post a comment
















__