| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/31/2008 12:51:03 PM · #751 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Earlier I posted a link for Ray that showed a CNN article with McCain's tax proposals actually being better for those earning 66,000 or more. |
Um -- right. That was rather the point. Why on earth do those earning 66,000 need a tax break?! Doesn't make sense. Both of those charts show McCain's cynical tax breaks for the über-wealthy. Doesn't make him look too fiscally responsible at all. More like oiling the palms of his rich cronies.
Originally posted by Flash:
...Obama camp is hedging its positions of the many promises it has made during this campaign due to the current financial crisis...My conclusion is that Obama is full of it. |
I see. Not that he's fiscally responsible, realistic, or adaptable when it conditions change. No, unless he dogmatically sticks to a platform point, irrespective of the changing environment in which it is made, he's not to be trusted. What kind of politician do you want for president, anyway? One that prizes dogma over substance? Well then, you've got your man in McCain, baby.
Originally posted by Flash:
Can't be trusted and done nothing but talk about what he wants to do, without the actual evidence of ever having done it. |
Erm.. uhhm... ok... so, maybe you can explain how somebody can manage to do something suggested in a campaign before the office is acquired? Is that one of your criterium for the worth of a candidate? That he can miraculously achieve one of his campaign promises before actually getting elected? |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 12:55:12 PM · #752 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
If Republicans had the money Obama has, the left would be charging them with "buying the election". |
So, how do you feel about McCain spending $86 million taxpayer dollars instead of soliciting voluntary, private contributions?
I'm pretty sure this is the first (Presidential election) year that Democrats have raised more campaign contributions than the Republicans. |
1. If my memory is correct, there is a voluntary box on your annual IRS forms that one can check to donate to that very fund. That is the purpose of it. The sole purpose of it as I understand it. Therfore, it seems like every candidate should be mandated to take it as the citizens donated it for that purpose - voluntarily. Certainly candidates who promise to take it. But this year the democrats are reeling in money so the rules this year are different. Just as Bill Clinton promised in his original campaign to NOT RAISE TAXES on the middle class, it took only 26 days into office for him to renig on that promise and justify it on the back of the furture generations argument. With our current deficit, there is no way Obama can keep his promise either. But he doesn't have to. |
 Flash, man, you talked about standing up in a discussion. What else have most others and I been doing here? Just because you prove you are fighting this argument alone here doesnt make what you believe a universal truth, unless you back your statements with impartial FACTS and not prejudices.
Imagine.. if I started screaming here about something controversial (there are many such topics), I will be run down by many many who will argue against it logically... but I can be stubborn and stick to what I am saying without any facts or logic to back it all up... and then 3 days and a 100 posts later, I could claim that I have a thick skin and I have the courage to stand up and face the crowd. Now if I thought about it and argued with substance, I will find many who will sit back and listen to what I have to say. But if I just choose to prove that I am a rebel and dont care what others say and only what I say is right (again with no facts or credible sources - check 'Fox' off there), that would be called impulsive insanity.. not smartness.
There is a difference between standing up for a cause you believe in (and know why you do), and just armoring yourself and screaming in front of a crowd almost telling them they are all ignorant and crazy. The latter is called stupidity.. no matter how nicely you wrap it in school-book English.
You certainly are a smart guy when it comes to Hummers for example.. and this is no satire, I mean it. But you fail when it comes to facing a knowledgible and informed opponent with logic. You remind me of a friend who would always just run out and shoot randomly at others in a video game.. ignoring the suroundings...with no logic whatsoever. His argument was: it shows I am superior and can stand up and am not scared. That was just a game.. but you prove that in real life, my friend.
I am all for supporting the one who thinks different from the crowd.. as long as it makes sense. Unfortunately you have not been able to convince a single soul on this forum over the years into believing what you believe. How do you explain that? Perhaps you lacked the facts.. or the examples that are convincing. Or perhaps you call everyone here idiot... just like your comments about the Obama-supporting-crowd?
I call upon you now. YOU stand up first with facts and answer those who bring facts too, not because you owe it, but because thats the logical way of having others respect what you believe in. A single slingshot aimed correctly is better than a randomly blurted weapon.
Can you stand up now? And respond to the facts rather than ignoring them? We can go over them one by one.
Do you want to start, my stand-up-guy?
ET: Spell check. |
Originally posted by Flash:
1. I am not convinced that such a thing as "impartial facts" exist - at least from the standpoint that we both agree that they are impartial.
|
Well then we can never have a healthy discussion, can we? I firmly believe in bringing facts to the table before addressing conflicting issue(s). And you firmly believe that there can never be perfectly impartial fact sources.
There is one way out though: can you propose a nominally impartial source of facts from your best knowledge and we can try to see if I agree that is a 'workable' source, and then we base all our statements on facts from that source?
Originally posted by Flash:
2. If you have a list of truly impartial sources (and FactCheck.org is not one of them), I will gladly assess it and see if we cannot have a reasonable discussion.
|
Like I said above, your beliefs lead you to dismiss any source that I provide. I respectfully invite you to provide a source, which is -preferrably- not a big business house but a non-profit organization.. or it can even be a source from outside the U.S. that both of us can agree is a 3rd party source that is nominally impartial may not be perfect).
Originally posted by Flash:
3. Last night Maddow ......I am more than willing to Stand up and have responsible discussions, but it requires more than one side to come to the table and respect the arguments of the other. Bashing FOX news as unreliable when clearly they are not, won't move us forward. Even Obama knows he needs FOX news' audience. |
|
In all fairness, just as you dont want to take FactCheck.org as a reliable source, I disagree to take Fox news as a reliable source. I even provided common folk's words (no propaganda.. just random opinions) that say why Fox News may be unreliable as a source of truth. But you chose to ignore them. You owe an explanation wny.
Also, you dont have any proof against FactCheck.org being an unreliable source, yet you expect me to believe it is so.
In light of the above, how can you expect a person from the other side to have a knowledgible and informed discussion? It is a genuine question.
So now, we have two choices:
[1] You will propose a news source that is nominally impartial and I agree to that and we carry on a meaningful discussion.
[2] You will say that there isnt such source (not even marginally impartial), in which case we will end this discussion, and you will stop posting on this forum.
I have little hopes of [2] happening, and I hope [1] happens. Now if none of them happen, I prove my point that all you want to do here is have factless debates, and have still not cleared your intentions.
If I remember correctly, you are an English major. What do you equate a factless conversation with, if not a baseless and endless stirrup?
I await your pointed responses to the above, not another pile of baseless statements.
ETA: I just read your comments on Obama's tax plans and how McCain's is better for those making above 111,645 USD (not 66K) per year. I am aware of that. And I appreciate how you pointed to that. Here is a breakup of his proposed plan, the original source being a tax policy center, not NPR. Now this would be a factual discussion, unlike a factless one. Also, from the same source,
"In the end, the Tax Policy Center's Burman says, both Obama's and McCain's plans would add to the national debt."
This is what I call impartial reporting. No matter who gets elected, the national debt will rise because of the current turmoil.. and not all their individual plans be get executed right away... not just Obama's.. that is impartiality. Still, I just believe more in Obama's ideals than McCain's. Its not Obama's fault that he is not as old as McCain? Obama has a whole life remaining ahead.. and I refuse not give his ideas a chance JUST because McCain has been around longer besides other issues. I am sorry but we are not talking about cheese here that gets better with age... and even if we did, some of them start to smell pretty bad:-)
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 13:17:39.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 12:58:08 PM · #753 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Can't be trusted and done nothing but talk about what he wants to do, without the actual evidence of ever having done it. |
And what has McCain done...?
Besides play up his false image as a "Mavrick" while marching in-step with GW Bush and the neo-cons? |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 01:04:34 PM · #754 |
dem-a-gogue
see: John McCain
Looks like everyones minds are pretty much made up and are digging in deep.
I just wrote a long letter to a friend and McCain voter, who sees Obama as nothing more than an "empty suit".
I was thinking how could you view someone as an empty suit when he graduated Magna Cun Laude from Havard Law. That takes incredibly hard work and dedication.
I'm guessing intelligence and hard work don't count for much these days so I won't bother writing my friend back. What's the point? |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 01:19:50 PM · #755 |
| Frankly I find it difficult to understand how anyone could vote in all conscience for McCain/Palin, given the sum of lying, bungling, turncoating, and inexperience on display in these two. To hear Obama speak is enlightening, even on an issue where there is some disagreement with the listener. He exudes knowledge, confidence in his position, and, horror of horrors, actual intelligence. To hear McCain speak is rather embarrassing, as disingenuous and cynical as he is. (Let's not even talk about the McCain mob.) |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 01:23:54 PM · #756 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
dem-a-gogue
see: John McCain
Looks like everyones minds are pretty much made up and are digging in deep.
I just wrote a long letter to a friend and McCain voter, who sees Obama as nothing more than an "empty suit".
I was thinking how could you view someone as an empty suit when he graduated Magna Cun Laude from Havard Law. That takes incredibly hard work and dedication.
I'm guessing intelligence and hard work don't count for much these days so I won't bother writing my friend back. What's the point? |
It is an unfortunate truth that intelligence is not valued as widely as street-smartness today. As I call Obama intelligent, McCain may be called street-smart (read not smart, but street-smart).
One's intelligence is valued only in an intelligent crowd. But if you are street-smart (part intelligent and part bully and part cunning and part rebel), more people may listen to you... just because more people know about hollywood actors and their lives more than they know about Nobel Laureate's lives. I can continue arguing and conclude that that is why Fox News is so popular (street smartness), while NPR/public television is not.
Remember: to value an intelligent man, one needs an intelligent crowd. And not everyone has a college or grad school degree.. do they? ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 13:24:31.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 01:29:29 PM · #757 |
I posted this Christopher Hitchens interview with Chris Mathews somewhere before but here it is in it's entirety.
McCain has been showing what some call "senior moments" and no exaggeration they are very real and should be a concern, especially with his VP pick.
Again, people are dug in and will find or construe anything, factual or not to make their point.
Flash has demonstrated how short of facts people can be and that that doesn't really matter in the slightest. It's tough work and good luck to them but what's to debate when you're up against shizzle a mile high?
eta: Prash: Calling McCain "street smart" and lumping FOX news into that frame is an insult to "Street Smart". God help us...now, even street smart is dumb. Will it ever end?
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 13:34:04. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 01:31:23 PM · #758 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by citymars:
As for factcheck.org... spazmo may have put in indelicately, but there simply is more dishonesty coming from the McCain camp and from Republican supporters who spread viscious emails. See also //www.politifact.com/ |
Thanks for the link to the St Petersburg Times politico site. Here is a finding that McCains portrayal of Obama's misleading tax claims is found to be mostly true. Earlier I posted a link for Ray that showed a CNN article with McCain's tax proposals actually being better for those earning 66,000 or more. Add to these this mornings articles (which have since been removed so I cannot post a direct link) which are claiming that the Obama camp is hedging its positions of the many promises it has made during this campaign due to the current financial crisis. Now these are all facts. None from FOX. My conclusion is that Obama is full of it. Can't be trusted and done nothing but talk about what he wants to do, without the actual evidence of ever having done it. Yet presented with these facts, many posters here keep asking (demanding) I proove with facts, things they don't even require of the candidate they support for the presidency. Seems odd to me. |
I found this portion of your link very interesting:
" To be clear, we don't see evidence that Obama is crawfishing backward from his tax plan, as McCain implies. Most of the statements McCain refers to are consistent with Obama's long-stated tax policies"
Doesn't seem all that misleading to me.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 01:37:40 PM · #759 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
eta: Prash: Calling McCain "street smart" and lumping FOX news into that frame is an insult to "Street Smart". God help us...now, even street smart is dumb. Will it ever end? |
He's not "street smart". He's essentially the same spoiled brat who his classmates nicknamed McNasty both because of his language and his temperament. Only now, he stands to potentially become much more dangerous to all. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 01:42:15 PM · #760 |
Originally posted by Prash:
I even provided common folk's words (no propaganda.. just random opinions) that say why Fox News may be unreliable as a source of truth. |
Why bother? FOX doesn't even claim to be a reliable source–
"FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre̢۪s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so."
In the end, you're trying to debate with logic and facts. You know they're just going to bounce off... like a cop who watches all his buddies firing on the Terminator at point blank range with no effect, yet pulls out his service revolver anyway. It's only here to create mayhem. It cannot be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. Don't waste your time. Go take some pictures (and vote). |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 01:46:08 PM · #761 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Frankly I find it difficult to understand how anyone could vote in all conscience for McCain/Palin, given the sum of lying, bungling, turncoating, and inexperience on display in these two. To hear Obama speak is enlightening, even on an issue where there is some disagreement with the listener. He exudes knowledge, confidence in his position, and, horror of horrors, actual intelligence. To hear McCain speak is rather embarrassing, as disingenuous and cynical as he is. (Let's not even talk about the McCain mob.) |
You know, as much as we have learned to hate political prowess, sometimes it is effective. I'm not saying McCain is good at this, because he's not, but I'd point to the example of FDR. His strength was not necessarily his intelligence or his convictions, but rather his sheer ability to get people to do things he wanted them to do. Of course I wasn't alive when he was prez, but I bet he had a large dose of "Slick Willy" in him. McCain is doing his best trying to "fit the role" of a conservative candidate, but it's coming up short.
Hmmm, I reread that and now it seems like I'm just rambling. What's my point? Now, I'm not even sure. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 01:47:12 PM · #762 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
McCain has been showing what some call "senior moments" and no exaggeration they are very real and should be a concern, especially with his VP pick. |
Like this? |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 01:53:07 PM · #763 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
McCain has been showing what some call "senior moments" and no exaggeration they are very real and should be a concern, especially with his VP pick. |
Like this? |
Or this? |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 02:01:54 PM · #764 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd point to the example of FDR. His strength was not necessarily his intelligence or his convictions, but rather his sheer ability to get people to do things he wanted them to do. |
That's exactly what I'm counting on with Obama. As noted many times over, there isn't much a president can do by himself. It takes the approval of congress and the people to make any significant change, and Obama has the charisma and conviction to motivate. Bush didn't have that talent, and leaned heavily on credible and articulate people Colin Powell and even Rumsfeld to convince others to follow... a crutch that has largely evaporated over the past few years.
McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush as a maverick, but has not demonstrated that ability to lead. As a vivid example, remember that he went back to congress to take care of the economy, but couldn't even get a majority of his own party to support him. Even if you believe McCain's promises, the likelihood that he'd ever be able to implement them, especially with a presumably Democratic congress, is pretty much nil. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 02:11:25 PM · #765 |
Well, the ballot is dropped off. It may be interesting to some on the other side to know I voted for Gordon Smith for Senate because a) he's a moderate republican and b) I'd actually rather the dems didn't have a filibuster proof majority. Giving either party unfettered power is probably not a great idea.
EDIT: Umm, ya, the senator, not the racecar driver...
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 14:16:40. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 02:13:04 PM · #766 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Giving either party unfettered power is probably not a great idea. |
It's a fabulous way to prevent change, though. :-/ |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 02:15:16 PM · #767 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, the ballot is dropped off. It may be interesting to some on the other side to know I voted for Jeff Gordon for Senate because a) he's a moderate republican and b) I'd actually rather the dems didn't have a filibuster proof majority. |
Isn't Jeff Gordon going to be busy racing NASCAR? |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 02:15:27 PM · #768 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Giving either party unfettered power is probably not a great idea. |
It's a fabulous way to prevent change, though. :-/ |
I believe in the phrase "blessed gridlock". |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 02:16:14 PM · #769 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, the ballot is dropped off. It may be interesting to some on the other side to know I voted for Jeff Gordon for Senate because a) he's a moderate republican and b) I'd actually rather the dems didn't have a filibuster proof majority. |
Isn't Jeff Gordon going to be busy racing NASCAR? |
HAHAHA, I guess I mean Gordon Smith, don't I? Don't know where that mini-stroke came from. I don't even watch NASCAR. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 02:22:59 PM · #770 |
Even without 60 votes, the dems will likely control both houses. That will be enough to slowly move the country back to the center. I just don't want it barreling through at 60-miles-an-hour and before we know it we're way on the left. I like things in the comfy center.
The reps will have to choose carefully what to filibuster and they'll keep it for the most liberal things on the agenda. If they do it all the time you'll now hear the dems talking about the "nuclear option" that the reps were talking about a few short years ago. Mark my words on that. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 02:41:48 PM · #771 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even without 60 votes, the dems will likely control both houses. That will be enough to slowly move the country back to the center. I just don't want it barreling through at 60-miles-an-hour and before we know it we're way on the left. |
Whoa there, bud... ;-P you're making a generalization that all Democrats lean heavily toward the left (and that all Republicans don't). The nature of such a large group of people is that you could never push an extreme agenda either way since the moderates among both groups would balk. It's hard enough to get minor legislation passed. If you're fearful enough of your presidential candidate actually achieving his campaign promises to handcuff his ability to do so, then why vote for him? |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 03:00:16 PM · #772 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even without 60 votes, the dems will likely control both houses. That will be enough to slowly move the country back to the center. I just don't want it barreling through at 60-miles-an-hour and before we know it we're way on the left. |
Whoa there, bud... ;-P you're making a generalization that all Democrats lean heavily toward the left (and that all Republicans don't). The nature of such a large group of people is that you could never push an extreme agenda either way since the moderates among both groups would balk. It's hard enough to get minor legislation passed. If you're fearful enough of your presidential candidate actually achieving his campaign promises to handcuff his ability to do so, then why vote for him? |
We're likely delivering two houses with his party in control. Even that is unusual. It's not like Clinton wasn't effective even when the Reps took over in 94. Basically I'm allowing one measure for the Republicans to put on the brakes. I don't see a big problem with that. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 03:12:19 PM · #773 |
Candidates differ on how to help working families.
ETA from the same source:
"Cost to taxpayers. The total projected costs for the candidates' proposals on these fronts are elusive.
Both campaigns "defer a lot of costs in this area," said David Gray, director of the workplace and family program for the New America Foundation, a think tank in Washington, D.C. "It's much more difficult to compare the cost-benefit" than with, say, health care.
Gray, who said it was "significant that you have a Republican doing anything in this area," noted that McCain's proposed commission would cost little to establish, and "if you don't implement any recommendations, there's no cost."
In contrast, he says, "Obama has very real numbers: The most conservative is north of $1.6 billion, and it's fair to say it's a lot higher. Here you have one candidate who has very direct solutions and one who has indirect solutions, and we won't know what they are until the recommendations" come through."
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 15:15:05. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 03:14:02 PM · #774 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Prash:
I even provided common folk's words (no propaganda.. just random opinions) that say why Fox News may be unreliable as a source of truth. |
Why bother? FOX doesn't even claim to be a reliable source–
"FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre̢۪s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so."
In the end, you're trying to debate with logic and facts. You know they're just going to bounce off... like a cop who watches all his buddies firing on the Terminator at point blank range with no effect, yet pulls out his service revolver anyway. It's only here to create mayhem. It cannot be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. Don't waste your time. Go take some pictures (and vote). |
Thi is a cool analogy. I am sure Flash will be more than happy to cite it in his friendly Hummer forums.. after all.. who doesnt want to be called the terminator?:-) |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 03:21:29 PM · #775 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Just because you prove you are fighting this argument alone here doesnt (sic) make what you believe a universal truth, unless you back your statements with impartial FACTS and not prejudices. |
The same is true about your posts.
Originally posted by Prash:
Again and again you are choosing not to respond to the facts when presented about Fox... |
Perhaps that's because YOU didn't provide any FACTS about Fox News.
Originally posted by Prash:
In all fairness, just as you dont (sic) want to take FactCheck.org as a reliable source, I disagree to take Fox news as a reliable source. I even provided common folk's (sic) words (no propaganda.. just random opinions) that say why Fox News may be unreliable as a source of truth. But you chose to ignore them. You owe an explanation wny.(sic) |
Why does Flash owe an explanation for ignoring what are, by your own admission, "random OPINIONS" and not FACTS? Perhaps it is YOU who owes an explanation as to why you demand FACTS from others but do not provide them yourself.
Originally posted by Prash:
Also, you dont (sic) have any proof against FactCheck.org being an unreliable source, yet you expect me to believe it is so. |
Speaking of FACTS, and the demand for same - please provide the FACTS to back up your statement that Flash "dont (sic) have any proof against FactCheck.org being an unreliable source". Also, provide FACTS that Fox News is an unreliable source.
OR, you could help to return this thread to a more civil discourse by merely acknowledging that Flash is as entitled to his OPINION about FactCheck.org - without having to provide FACTS - as you are to your OPINION about Fox News - without having to provide FACTS.
Originally posted by Prash:
In light of the above, how can you expect a person from the other side to have a knowledgible (sic) and informed discussion? It is a genuine question. |
Yes, I can hardly wait to read your response. |
|
