| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/12/2008 11:10:47 AM · #351 |
Well I showed you my proof where's yours. And enough with your childish attacks on individuals. It just goes to prove once again you have nothing left to debate so you start your ridiculing and personal attacks. So how about prove me wrong with facts not just hot air.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You're just plain wrong on so many levels, but I will concede that you're creative with history and spelling.
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well lets look at the facts. The Emancipation proclamation only free slaves in states not under the control of Licoln at the time or if you wish the confederacy. The 13th amendment was ratified December 6, 1865. Lincoln died 7:22 A.M. on the morning of April 15, 1865. So he died before all slaves were free in the U.S. Second no where in the laws of this Nation has it ever said a state could not suceed from the union. Third if you have studied politics you would know that the 1964 Kennedy Nixon debate was the turning point in American politics. It was the first time a presidential debate was broadcast over Television. People before had to listen to the debate. I always listen to debated so your not persuaded by manurisism or crowd jerring. Fourth The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, stated that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies. However, if later on these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States. Most recently, during the Cold War, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (added during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt) was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of Communism. Any sitting president could have envoked this. The love of Kennedy is purely Camelot. In other words make believe.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by coronamv:
I do not feel you can judge a president on just a few actions they made. Lincoln and Kennedy in my studies of history prove to be more of a failure than a success. They call Lincoln the great emancipator but he only free the slaves in the Southern Confederacy. Second point he had no athority under the laws of this nation to wage a war on any state that suceeded from the union. Kennedy technically lost the 1964 debate to Nixon but was young and handsome compaired to Nixon the Old washington Crony with the five oclock shadow 8 am in the morning.He basically won on looks. Second all sitting presidents would have followed the Monroe Doctrine that says we are the only Super power in the western Hemisphere. Beyond that both were assasinated and we can only imagine what could,would but did not be.
|
I've heard some revisionist history in my time, but THAT is amazing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:14:31 AM · #352 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
There is some sound economic policy behind the idea of a stimulus package that includes "rebates" or direct payments:
"Targeted measures are those aimed at individuals and entities that will spend quickly the bulk of any new resources they receive. Tax cuts that mainly benefit high-income individuals are poorly targeted to provide stimulus, because those individuals are more likely to save a large share of any increase in disposable income they receive than are people of more modest means. Government-funded construction projects that take many months or even several years to get underway are poorly targeted as well. In contrast, tax cuts and increases in government spending aimed at low- and moderate-income consumers and unemployed workers — such as tax cuts that provide a flat refund to all tax filers, additional weeks of unemployment benefits to workers who have been unable to find a new job, and increases in food stamp benefits — are far more effective as stimulus."
From this article at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. |
Didn't take long to find THIS
"According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is one of three left wing think tanks funded by the Democracy Alliance. The other two are the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute. According to Bai's account, representatives of CBPP and the other two Democracy Alliance-sponsored think tanks attended the May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance at the Barton Creek Resort near Austin, Texas. Their role was to "talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future.""
And THAT assessment is from someone at the NY Times. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:22:40 AM · #353 |
Yeah - assuming that is all accurate (coming from Glen Beck), it certainly is fair to get these distractions out of the way.
The thing is, as I have said before, she was intended to be a distraction - and the conservatives didn't need to do anything other than select her as the running mate.
If we get back to the core issues and away from the distractions, we may actually see results that favor progressives. If you look at how McCain is marketing himself now, it certainly is similar to how the Obama campaign started ("change in the white house" etc.)
I personally don't think the playing field is quite as level as I would like it. From what I hear (anecdotally), there are some people that just can't pull the lever on someone with dark skin (or someone that has ever been mentioned in the same sentence as the word "muslim").
Originally posted by Flash:
Although I doubt the following article on Sarah Palin will sway any who are opposed to her political positions, it is illustrative of my earlier points on how campaigns are disengenious in their representations of their opponents. Additionally, some may actually find clarification on a few untruths. |
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:27:37 AM · #354 |
| This thread is full of Bulverism, a most excellent word coined by CS Lewis. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:28:54 AM · #355 |
You showed your skewed interpretation of history, not proof. Do you really need lectures on Lincoln and Kennedy? Did you really study Poli Sci like you claimed? If so, then you should know you're just blowing smoke.
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well I showed you my proof where's yours. And enough with your childish attacks on individuals. It just goes to prove once again you have nothing left to debate so you start your ridiculing and personal attacks. So how about prove me wrong with facts not just hot air.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You're just plain wrong on so many levels, but I will concede that you're creative with history and spelling.
Originally posted by coronamv:
Well lets look at the facts. The Emancipation proclamation only free slaves in states not under the control of Licoln at the time or if you wish the confederacy. The 13th amendment was ratified December 6, 1865. Lincoln died 7:22 A.M. on the morning of April 15, 1865. So he died before all slaves were free in the U.S. Second no where in the laws of this Nation has it ever said a state could not suceed from the union. Third if you have studied politics you would know that the 1964 Kennedy Nixon debate was the turning point in American politics. It was the first time a presidential debate was broadcast over Television. People before had to listen to the debate. I always listen to debated so your not persuaded by manurisism or crowd jerring. Fourth The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. doctrine which, on December 2, 1823, stated that European powers were no longer to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and their colonies. However, if later on these types of wars were to occur in the Americas, the United States would view such action as hostile. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States. Most recently, during the Cold War, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (added during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt) was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of Communism. Any sitting president could have envoked this. The love of Kennedy is purely Camelot. In other words make believe.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by coronamv:
I do not feel you can judge a president on just a few actions they made. Lincoln and Kennedy in my studies of history prove to be more of a failure than a success. They call Lincoln the great emancipator but he only free the slaves in the Southern Confederacy. Second point he had no athority under the laws of this nation to wage a war on any state that suceeded from the union. Kennedy technically lost the 1964 debate to Nixon but was young and handsome compaired to Nixon the Old washington Crony with the five oclock shadow 8 am in the morning.He basically won on looks. Second all sitting presidents would have followed the Monroe Doctrine that says we are the only Super power in the western Hemisphere. Beyond that both were assasinated and we can only imagine what could,would but did not be.
|
I've heard some revisionist history in my time, but THAT is amazing. |
|
|
|
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 11:29:12. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:35:04 AM · #356 |
Originally posted by metatate:
Yeah - assuming that is all accurate (coming from Glen Beck), it certainly is fair to get these distractions out of the way.
The thing is, as I have said before, she was intended to be a distraction - and the conservatives didn't need to do anything other than select her as the running mate.
If we get back to the core issues and away from the distractions, we may actually see results that favor progressives. If you look at how McCain is marketing himself now, it certainly is similar to how the Obama campaign started ("change in the white house" etc.)
I personally don't think the playing field is quite as level as I would like it. From what I hear (anecdotally), there are some people that just can't pull the lever on someone with dark skin (or someone that has ever been mentioned in the same sentence as the word "muslim").
Originally posted by Flash:
Although I doubt the following article on Sarah Palin will sway any who are opposed to her political positions, it is illustrative of my earlier points on how campaigns are disengenious in their representations of their opponents. Additionally, some may actually find clarification on a few untruths. |
|
If Washington needs to change and McCain has been in office 26 years, why hasn't he gotten more done? |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:38:23 AM · #357 |
There are many reasons to prefer Barack Obama to John McCain, however, computer literacy -- or lack of -- would be at the bottom of my list.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:41:34 AM · #358 |
Did I miss this in the interview yesterday? and how come we aren't talking about the interview? Finally we have Sarah doing some talking on her own and we can't discuss it...
PALIN'S GLOBAL-WARMING SKEPTICISM.... Since Sarah Palin was added to the Republican ticket, there have been multiple reports about her skepticism regarding the science behind global warming. Last night, during her ABC interview, Palin was pressed on her beliefs, and got a little defensive.
"Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that," Palin told Charlie Gibson.
Well, what has she said? The AP takes a closer look, and concludes Palin's remarks to ABC are "at odds with her previous statements."
[I]n the past Palin has said she does not believe global warming is caused by human activity. She has told the Internet news site Newsmax, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location.... I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made." In an interview with a Fairbanks newspaper within the last year, Palin said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." ABC cited the interview as being at odds with her statement. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:41:37 AM · #359 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If Washington needs to change and McCain has been in office 26 years, why hasn't he gotten more done? |
Because he isn't alone in the Senate - and he must convince at least 50 others to agree with him in order to get anything done, or undone. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:41:45 AM · #360 |
Originally posted by metatate:
I personally don't think the playing field is quite as level as I would like it. From what I hear (anecdotally), there are some people that just can't pull the lever on someone with dark skin (or someone that has ever been mentioned in the same sentence as the word "muslim"). |
I certainly do not doubt that some measure of the electorate holds that view. However I really suspect that for the majority of voters, the party/candidate positions on certain core issues like gun control, abortion, taxes, gay rights, military use, unions, illegal immigration, income redistribution, etc. will ultimately move them to vote for one candidate over the other. Regardless of who that candidate may actually be. White, black, male or female, it will come down to the policy positions of the parties themselves and who can get the most people to the polls on Nov 4th. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:46:21 AM · #361 |
Originally posted by Flash:
... Regardless of who that candidate may actually be. White, black, male or female, it will come down to the policy positions of the parties themselves ... |
Really? This part seems to fly in the face of the actual discourse.
And for the record, I've heard directly from one person who said they just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a black president, saying "look what happened to NYC when Dinkins was mayor" and I've heard second hand from a friend that, when pressed, his relatives finally admitted that Obama's skin color was the real reason they wouldn't vote for him.
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 11:47:05. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:51:59 AM · #362 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did I miss this in the interview yesterday? and how come we aren't talking about the interview? Finally we have Sarah doing some talking on her own and we can't discuss it...
PALIN'S GLOBAL-WARMING SKEPTICISM.... Since Sarah Palin was added to the Republican ticket, there have been multiple reports about her skepticism regarding the science behind global warming. Last night, during her ABC interview, Palin was pressed on her beliefs, and got a little defensive.
"Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that," Palin told Charlie Gibson.
Well, what has she said? The AP takes a closer look, and concludes Palin's remarks to ABC are "at odds with her previous statements."
[I]n the past Palin has said she does not believe global warming is caused by human activity. She has told the Internet news site Newsmax, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location.... I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made." In an interview with a Fairbanks newspaper within the last year, Palin said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." ABC cited the interview as being at odds with her statement. |
Quite simply, Palin does not dispute the fact that human activity may have SOME effect on climate change, but she will not go so far as to agree that human activity is the PREDOMINANT causative factor in climate change.
ABC, and others, attempting to extrapolate her statement that she is not one who would attribute [ all of ] it ( climate change ) to being [ predominately ] man-made, into meaning that she is not one who would attribute ANY PART OF IT to being influenced by man.
It's no wonder that she might seem a bit defensive - since they are making false accusations, still. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:54:19 AM · #363 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
... Regardless of who that candidate may actually be. White, black, male or female, it will come down to the policy positions of the parties themselves ... |
Really? This part seems to fly in the face of the actual discourse. |
I think the actual discourse you reference are the exceptions rather than the norm. In my social circles, I have not heard anyone or heard of anyone claiming a vote against Obama due to skin color. His voting record on gun issues is an entirely different matter. His numerous "present" votes in the Senate is another. As is his proposals for income redistribution from those that pay taxes to those that don't. These are the reasons I've encountered that have folks a bit concerned. Not his skin color. Actually I've heard many wish he would get elected to eliminate what is perceived as the continual "victim" claim by minorities - to finally be removed from the discussion. But that is just my exposure. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:54:49 AM · #364 |
Originally posted by citymars:
...Obama's skin color was the real reason they wouldn't vote for him. |
Presumably, "change" isn't a priority for such people. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 11:57:25 AM · #365 |
People say racist things all the time without even realizing it.
The Dinkins comment is a great example.
If people don't see how that's racist, then they ARE racist.
It actually makes me ill because I don't think people know what racism really is.
On NPR they are doing a series about this. As I have said before, NPR consistently proves relevant.
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
... Regardless of who that candidate may actually be. White, black, male or female, it will come down to the policy positions of the parties themselves ... |
Really? This part seems to fly in the face of the actual discourse.
And for the record, I've heard directly from one person who said they just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a black president, saying "look what happened to NYC when Dinkins was mayor" and I've heard second hand from a friend that, when pressed, his relatives finally admitted that Obama's skin color was the real reason they wouldn't vote for him. |
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 12:18:21 PM · #366 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did I miss this in the interview yesterday? and how come we aren't talking about the interview? Finally we have Sarah doing some talking on her own and we can't discuss it...
PALIN'S GLOBAL-WARMING SKEPTICISM.... Since Sarah Palin was added to the Republican ticket, there have been multiple reports about her skepticism regarding the science behind global warming. Last night, during her ABC interview, Palin was pressed on her beliefs, and got a little defensive.
"Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that," Palin told Charlie Gibson.
Well, what has she said? The AP takes a closer look, and concludes Palin's remarks to ABC are "at odds with her previous statements."
[I]n the past Palin has said she does not believe global warming is caused by human activity. She has told the Internet news site Newsmax, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location.... I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made." In an interview with a Fairbanks newspaper within the last year, Palin said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." ABC cited the interview as being at odds with her statement. |
Quite simply, Palin does not dispute the fact that human activity may have SOME effect on climate change, but she will not go so far as to agree that human activity is the PREDOMINANT causative factor in climate change.
ABC, and others, attempting to extrapolate her statement that she is not one who would attribute [ all of ] it ( climate change ) to being [ predominately ] man-made, into meaning that she is not one who would attribute ANY PART OF IT to being influenced by man.
It's no wonder that she might seem a bit defensive - since they are making false accusations, still. |
I thought it was a particularly skillful backpedal. She's obviously gotten some pretty good coaching. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 12:25:06 PM · #367 |
So she should have been asked: "Do you consider global warming an issue that needs attention at the national level?" â€Â¦ "If yes, how so?" As a person that is running for VP, it doesn't really matter what she "thinks", it matters what she plans on doing, right?
Sorry- removed quote.
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 13:48:35. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 12:29:55 PM · #368 |
Darth Vader errr Dick Cheney aside, the VP typically does very little.
Originally posted by metatate:
So she should have been asked: "Do you consider global warming an issue that needs attention at the national level?" â€Â¦ "If yes, how so?" As a person that is running for VP, it doesn't really matter what she "thinks", it matters what she plans on doing, right?
Originally posted by RonB:
ABC, and others, attempting to extrapolate her statement that she is not one who would attribute [ all of ] it ( climate change ) to being [ predominately ] man-made, into meaning that she is not one who would attribute ANY PART OF IT to being influenced by man. |
|
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 13:04:04. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 12:30:58 PM · #369 |
Other than pander to the base and to women you mean ? ;P
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Darth Vader errr Dick Cheney aside, the VP typically does very little.
|
|
|
|
|
09/12/2008 12:42:35 PM · #370 |
| Spazmo, I think you quoted the wrong person above (it was RonB, not DrAchoo, yes?). |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 12:45:25 PM · #371 |
Originally posted by RonB:
|
Quite simply, Palin does not dispute the fact that human activity may have SOME effect on climate change, but she will not go so far as to agree that human activity is the PREDOMINANT causative factor in climate change.
ABC, and others, attempting to extrapolate her statement that she is not one who would attribute [ all of ] it ( climate change ) to being [ predominately ] man-made, into meaning that she is not one who would attribute ANY PART OF IT to being influenced by man.
It's no wonder that she might seem a bit defensive - since they are making false accusations, still. [/quote]
... would you be so kind as to provide a link to where exactly it was that she used words such s "some" and "predominant"... I seem to have lost my copy. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 12:46:31 PM · #372 |
| Thanks for catching that citymars. Dang you spaz! Get your Palin lovin' quotes right! |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 12:47:24 PM · #373 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I think the actual discourse you reference are the exceptions rather than the norm. In my social circles, I have not heard anyone or heard of anyone claiming a vote against Obama due to skin color. |
I should have been clearer. I was lumping together two topics. What I called the "actual discourse" wasn't race but other matters people focus on. Refer back to the lipstick/pig issue as a prime example.
Originally posted by Flash:
Actually I've heard many wish he would get elected to eliminate what is perceived as the continual "victim" claim by minorities - to finally be removed from the discussion. But that is just my exposure. |
Sounds like you are exposed to the kind of people metatate mentioned: those who are unconciously racist.
Edited to fix grammar error, there may be others! :-)
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 12:51:00. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 12:47:44 PM · #374 |
Originally posted by metatate:
So she should have been asked: "Do you consider global warming an issue that needs attention at the national level?" â€Â¦ "If yes, how so?" As a person that is running for VP, it doesn't really matter what she "thinks", it matters what she plans on doing, right?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
ABC, and others, attempting to extrapolate her statement that she is not one who would attribute [ all of ] it ( climate change ) to being [ predominately ] man-made, into meaning that she is not one who would attribute ANY PART OF IT to being influenced by man. |
|
Actually, it was ME ( RonB ) who posted that bit, not DrAchoo.
Anyway, to answer your question: Yes, you are correct. And Gibson DID ask her that question, and she DID at least TRY TO answer it.
Gibson: "Do you still believe that global warming is not man-made?"
Palin: "I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our union of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting. Regardless though of the reason for climate change -- whether it's entirely wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet, the warming and the cooling trends -- regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we've got to do something about it and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut back on pollution."
Gibson pressed to get her to admit that Climate Change is man-made:
Gibson: "But it's a critical point as to whether this is man made. He [ McCain ] says it is. You have said in the past it's not."
Palin: "The debate on that even really has evolved into, 'Okay, here's where we are now. Scientists do show us that there are changes in climate. Things are getting warmer. Now what do we do about it?' John McCain and I are going to be working on what we do."
Gibson: "Yes, but isn't it critical as to whether or not it's man-made? Because what you do about it depends on whether it's man-made."
Palin: "That's why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now."
Gibson: "But I -- color me a cynic -- but I hear a little bit of change in your policy there when you say 'Yes,' now you̢۪re beginning to say it is man-made. Sounds to me like you're adapting your position to Senator McCain's."
Palin: "I think you are a cynic, because show me where I've said there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that. I have said that my belief is there is a cyclical nature of our planet — warming trends, cooling trends — I'm not going to argue scientists because I believe in science and have such a great respect for what they are telling us. I'm not going to disagree with the point that they make that man's activities can be attributed to changes."
I don't see any back peddling. Just clarifying the difference between man being SOMEWHAT at fault and man being TOTALLY or even PREDOMINATELY at fault.
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 12:48:57. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 12:58:09 PM · #375 |
More sad distortions, from today's news {sigh}
"John McCain said Friday running mate Sarah Palin has never asked for money for lawmakers' pet projects as Alaska governor when in fact she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year."
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 13:35:22. |
|
