| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/31/2008 09:38:24 AM · #726 |
I think everyone here is overestimating the power of the Prez elect.....The president can only propose these policies. By the time they pass through both houses, they'll be hard to recognize....I guess it makes for good discussion though.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 09:40:28 AM · #727 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
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. |
Curious. Why is FactCheck.org not impartial? Can you back that up? |
I originally thought that factcheck.org was impartial - primarily due to the many uses here and even pasted it into my favorites to have ready daily access. Then I came accross a report (which I cannot provide a link to as I have forgotten where I read/heard it) that indicated that the number of findings reported by factcheck were disproportionally in favor of Obama. Now one explaination could be that the results actually do favor Obama and therefore this report was inaccurate. So I choose to start reading the conclusions more carefully for a few days to decide for myself. I have not came to a conclusion yet - and until I get some outside verifiable evidence (that I believe), then they are currently off the list as purely unbiased. They may be the best we have, but I am not immediately of the opinion that they carry no bias. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 09:44:09 AM · #728 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
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. |
Curious. Why is FactCheck.org not impartial? Can you back that up? |
I originally thought that factcheck.org was impartial - primarily due to the many uses here and even pasted it into my favorites to have ready daily access. Then I came accross a report (which I cannot provide a link to as I have forgotten where I read/heard it) that indicated that the number of findings reported by factcheck were disproportionally in favor of Obama. Now one explaination could be that the results actually do favor Obama and therefore this report was inaccurate. So I choose to start reading the conclusions more carefully for a few days to decide for myself. I have not came to a conclusion yet - and until I get some outside verifiable evidence (that I believe), then they are currently off the list as purely unbiased. They may be the best we have, but I am not immediately of the opinion that they carry no bias. |
It's because the Republicans are more full of $h!+. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 09:44:38 AM · #729 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Flash:
Reads to me that your vehicle couldn't do squat until you modified it. My point exactly. |
Which one?
The Blazer? My trucks? The Subarus? The Carerra 4s I worked on? The Audis? The Subarus?
If you mean the Jeep.....once again, you don't know what you're talking about. The bone stock CJ-5 in '62 was the only thing around, and it was a utility vehicle, a workhorse, not some ridiculous excuse compromise vehicle like your H3.
I wanted to do something different and I wanted a frivolous but enormously capable variation on the theme. Perhaps I should explain that all of the 4WD mechanisms like the gear drive transfer case, the axles, the suspension, the diffs were all the original running gear that came as equipped with the four cylinder engine!
Yet the breakage was minimal and usually was as a result of something completely ludicrous that I asked of the machine.
Quadruple the horsepower and torque in your H3 and see what happens to the rest of the driveline.
Are you aware of the enormous difference in strength and reliability between a gear drive and a chain transfer case? Do you think there's a reason why you couldn't get a manual trans without the gear drive case? Would you know what a transfer case looked like if it fell on you? Ever had one apart, or fixed one?
Do you have ANY experience with the actual mechanics of the vehicles?
Ever heard the names New Process or DANA? Know where they come from? Their provenance?
Know where the Power Wagon originated? Know what a Nissan Patrol is? An FJ40?
How about a Jensen FF?
Oh, my Blazer also was a bone stocker......six cylinder, three speed, no back seat, vinyl & rubber interior......a utility vehicle. Both my Subies were bone stock.....the '98 Legacy GT five speed wagon was an awesome machine, one of the best vehicles I've ever owned. I learned a lot about the benefits of AWD in the context of a sport wagon from that car.
As usual, you're spouting off, and you're not even aware of it when someone hands you your hat. |
If you wish to carry on about how useless Hummers are, then I encourage you to do so on the Hummer forum. I have nothing more to say to you on this matter. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 09:44:50 AM · #730 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
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. |
Curious. Why is FactCheck.org not impartial? Can you back that up? |
I originally thought that factcheck.org was impartial - primarily due to the many uses here and even pasted it into my favorites to have ready daily access. Then I came accross a report (which I cannot provide a link to as I have forgotten where I read/heard it) that indicated that the number of findings reported by factcheck were disproportionally in favor of Obama. Now one explaination could be that the results actually do favor Obama and therefore this report was inaccurate. So I choose to start reading the conclusions more carefully for a few days to decide for myself. I have not came to a conclusion yet - and until I get some outside verifiable evidence (that I believe), then they are currently off the list as purely unbiased. They may be the best we have, but I am not immediately of the opinion that they carry no bias. |
It's big of you to admit to the possibility that it's because the results actually do favor Obama. I think that's worth considering, especially given that the founder of the foundation that supports FactCheck.org is an open McCain supporter. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 09:51:23 AM · #731 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
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. |
Curious. Why is FactCheck.org not impartial? Can you back that up? |
I originally thought that factcheck.org was impartial - primarily due to the many uses here and even pasted it into my favorites to have ready daily access. Then I came accross a report (which I cannot provide a link to as I have forgotten where I read/heard it) that indicated that the number of findings reported by factcheck were disproportionally in favor of Obama. Now one explaination could be that the results actually do favor Obama and therefore this report was inaccurate. So I choose to start reading the conclusions more carefully for a few days to decide for myself. I have not came to a conclusion yet - and until I get some outside verifiable evidence (that I believe), then they are currently off the list as purely unbiased. They may be the best we have, but I am not immediately of the opinion that they carry no bias. |
It's because the Republicans are more full of $h!+. |
Is this your way of trying to convince me that I should change my view? Now Eqsite and Prash have attempted to restart a discussion without the name calling and mud throwing. I will try to address them civily and with my reasons why for any given position. I trust they will return their comments likewise. It is clear to me now, that one reason I lumped many different users into one category was due to continuing posts like those from both Nikonjeb and yourself. I will try to be more discerning in the future. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 10:00:17 AM · #732 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If you wish to carry on about how useless Hummers are, then I encourage you to do so on the Hummer forum. I have nothing more to say to you on this matter. |
You really haven't had anything to say in the first place it appears.
As usual, YOU missed the point entirely. Personally I don't care one whit about Hummers except what they say about us as a society with so many useless twits burining a zillion gallons of fuel driving them around NEVER remotely using them as a 4WD utility vehicle. But it's a free country, and if Harry Homeowner wants to drive around in some giant penis extender, so be it.
You questioned my credentials as to being able to hold forth on that type of forum....I responded. You offered up your rationale for the vehicle's existence, I refuted it.
Dude, I'm kinda just enjoying tormenting you as a little personal payback from being one of the wackos here you were describing "over there".
Personally, I don't really get why you're here at all if we don't seem to be worthy of your superior intellect and knowledge.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 10:02:11 AM · #733 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It is clear to me now, that one reason I lumped many different users into one category was due to continuing posts like those from both Nikonjeb and yourself. I will try to be more discerning in the future. |
Not speaking for anyone but myself, but if you're "all that", PLEASE put me in the other category.
Don't ya just hate it when someone stands up to you with actual facts?
Seems so.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 10:16:54 AM · #734 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Reads to me that your vehicle couldn't do squat until you modified it. My point exactly. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Which one?
The Blazer? My trucks? The Subarus? The Carerra 4s I worked on? The Audis? The Subarus?
If you mean the Jeep.....once again, you don't know what you're talking about. The bone stock CJ-5 in '62 was the only thing around, and it was a utility vehicle, a workhorse, not some ridiculous excuse compromise vehicle like your H3.
I wanted to do something different and I wanted a frivolous but enormously capable variation on the theme. Perhaps I should explain that all of the 4WD mechanisms like the gear drive transfer case, the axles, the suspension, the diffs were all the original running gear that came as equipped with the four cylinder engine!
Yet the breakage was minimal and usually was as a result of something completely ludicrous that I asked of the machine.
Quadruple the horsepower and torque in your H3 and see what happens to the rest of the driveline.
Are you aware of the enormous difference in strength and reliability between a gear drive and a chain transfer case? Do you think there's a reason why you couldn't get a manual trans without the gear drive case? Would you know what a transfer case looked like if it fell on you? Ever had one apart, or fixed one?
Do you have ANY experience with the actual mechanics of the vehicles?
Ever heard the names New Process or DANA? Know where they come from? Their provenance?
Know where the Power Wagon originated? Know what a Nissan Patrol is? An FJ40?
How about a Jensen FF?
Oh, my Blazer also was a bone stocker......six cylinder, three speed, no back seat, vinyl & rubber interior......a utility vehicle. Both my Subies were bone stock.....the '98 Legacy GT five speed wagon was an awesome machine, one of the best vehicles I've ever owned. I learned a lot about the benefits of AWD in the context of a sport wagon from that car.
As usual, you're spouting off, and you're not even aware of it when someone hands you your hat. |
Originally posted by Flash:
If you wish to carry on about how useless Hummers are, then I encourage you to do so on the Hummer forum. I have nothing more to say to you on this matter. |
DO you have any actual 4WD knowledge and experience?
Do you know ANYTHING about what's out there?.....Other than what you read.
Just curious......8>)
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 10:17:54 AM · #735 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
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. |
Curious. Why is FactCheck.org not impartial? Can you back that up? |
I originally thought that factcheck.org was impartial - primarily due to the many uses here and even pasted it into my favorites to have ready daily access. Then I came accross a report (which I cannot provide a link to as I have forgotten where I read/heard it) that indicated that the number of findings reported by factcheck were disproportionally in favor of Obama. Now one explaination could be that the results actually do favor Obama and therefore this report was inaccurate. So I choose to start reading the conclusions more carefully for a few days to decide for myself. I have not came to a conclusion yet - and until I get some outside verifiable evidence (that I believe), then they are currently off the list as purely unbiased. They may be the best we have, but I am not immediately of the opinion that they carry no bias. |
It's because the Republicans are more full of $h!+. |
Is this your way of trying to convince me that I should change my view? Now Eqsite and Prash have attempted to restart a discussion without the name calling and mud throwing. I will try to address them civily and with my reasons why for any given position. I trust they will return their comments likewise. It is clear to me now, that one reason I lumped many different users into one category was due to continuing posts like those from both Nikonjeb and yourself. I will try to be more discerning in the future. |
Convince you to change your view? What on earth would make me, a lefty atheist gay Obama supporting socialist, as you put it, think I could possibly change your view after all this time?
That the "Republicans are more full of $h!+" is my blunt view of why factcheck.org refutes more of McCain's claims than those of Obama. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 10:29:18 AM · #736 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
I think everyone here is overestimating the power of the Prez elect.....The president can only propose these policies. By the time they pass through both houses, they'll be hard to recognize....I guess it makes for good discussion though. |
Especially in light of how the current administration is wholly to blame for a host of this country's maladies. In other words, if the powers are limited as you suggest and I agree with, then how is EVERYTHING Bush's fault. It isn't. If the decay of Detroit and Michigan is not the fault of those long time liberal admisistrations, then how can our country's decay be all the fault of this one President. It can't. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 10:34:46 AM · #737 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Is this your way of trying to convince me that I should change my view? Now Eqsite and Prash have attempted to restart a discussion without the name calling and mud throwing. I will try to address them civily and with my reasons why for any given position. I trust they will return their comments likewise. It is clear to me now, that one reason I lumped many different users into one category was due to continuing posts like those from both Nikonjeb and yourself. I will try to be more discerning in the future. |
Flash, your attitude is why I said I was glad that BeeCee posted the link to your more open expression of your feelings (including name calling) on the Hummer site. Not that I think you should indulge in name calling here, but this pretense at civil discourse is weak after you admitted publically you really come here to stir people up.
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/ |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 10:35:29 AM · #738 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by neophyte:
I think everyone here is overestimating the power of the Prez elect.....The president can only propose these policies. By the time they pass through both houses, they'll be hard to recognize....I guess it makes for good discussion though. |
Especially in light of how the current administration is wholly to blame for a host of this country's maladies. In other words, if the powers are limited as you suggest and I agree with, then how is EVERYTHING Bush's fault. It isn't. If the decay of Detroit and Michigan is not the fault of those long time liberal admisistrations, then how can our country's decay be all the fault of this one President. It can't. |
No, Bush worked with the R's in the House and Senate to do that. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 10:39:07 AM · #739 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by neophyte:
I think everyone here is overestimating the power of the Prez elect.....The president can only propose these policies. By the time they pass through both houses, they'll be hard to recognize....I guess it makes for good discussion though. |
Especially in light of how the current administration is wholly to blame for a host of this country's maladies. In other words, if the powers are limited as you suggest and I agree with, then how is EVERYTHING Bush's fault. It isn't. If the decay of Detroit and Michigan is not the fault of those long time liberal admisistrations, then how can our country's decay be all the fault of this one President. It can't. |
I would honestly argue that it's not all Bush's fault, but I would also argue that Bush has shown a real lack of leadership in avoiding or solving these problems. A president's primary role is to lead, and I don't feel Bush has done a good job at that. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 10:42:47 AM · #740 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Flash, your attitude is why I said I was glad that BeeCee posted the link to your more open expression of your feelings (including name calling) on the Hummer site. Not that I think you should indulge in name calling here, but this pretense at civil discourse is weak after you admitted publically you really come here to stir people up. |
If you read my reply to Louis' question asking where I was being less genuine, I answered clearly that regardless of the intent of my postings here, they stirred the pot no matter what my intent was. So to claim such, is merely stating fact - no matter if that was the original intent or not. My posts here stir the pot. Plain and simple. To state otherwise would be to deny reality.
I'll repost my earlier reply in case you missed it. You of course can decide for yourself.
Originally posted by Louis:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flash, here's a pointed question: are you here to genuinely challenge your own principles and engage in mature debate, or are you here, as your quoted post from elsewhere suggests, only to bait people you consider ideologically inferior? In other words, where are you being disingenuous, in your posts here, or at your post there? I ask because I think it's only fair to shed light on your motives, whatever they may be, and have people decide whether it's worth the time engaging you at all.
Louis - that is a fair question. As you rightly know, I have avoided answering any of your posts for some time. Our past discussions on religion were particulary aggravating but certainly not limited to those. In one discussion on gays and guns I specifically offered you an opportunity to promote 2nd amendment ideals in Canada and I would promote gay rights here in the states. You flat rejected any notion of such and retreated to tired old disproven gun grabber arguments and individual exceptions to support your position. Fine. But it seems to me that every argument I get into, you won't even budge a mm (except for the one time you almost agreed with me but slammed me to prove that you didn't). Now for me, to even post anything in here, I know from the start that it will be inciteful and swarms of opposition will attack. These threads are full of examples. Therefore regardless if I define it as stirring the pot on another site or not, that is the reality - even if that might not be the original intent at the time of the post. However, I freely admit, that sometimes I am so convinced of the incindiery nature of a post that the very posting of it will stir the pot. That does not in my view mean the topic should not be discussed, just that I know up front the nature of many posters here in Rant. Therefore, for me to even show up - requires a thick skin in my opinion. Honestly, I believe I was accurate in both locations and not disengenious at all. If you were to post in a consistently conservative thread (as I have here for months upon months), and get the attitudes and comments I received, then you would know exactly how I feel. My reason for returning after various self imposed exiles or work related departures, is regardless of how much I disagree with many here, I feel strongly that someone must present this side of the argument. I only wish I had the skills of a Rob B - but sadly they elude me. It is said that the strongest swords are the ones beaten the most times and what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. I see this Rant forum as my furnace. Lord knows I get beaten enough.
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 10:48:33. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 11:02:22 AM · #741 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by neophyte:
I think everyone here is overestimating the power of the Prez elect.....The president can only propose these policies. By the time they pass through both houses, they'll be hard to recognize....I guess it makes for good discussion though. |
Especially in light of how the current administration is wholly to blame for a host of this country's maladies. In other words, if the powers are limited as you suggest and I agree with, then how is EVERYTHING Bush's fault. It isn't. If the decay of Detroit and Michigan is not the fault of those long time liberal admisistrations, then how can our country's decay be all the fault of this one President. It can't. |
I would honestly argue that it's not all Bush's fault, but I would also argue that Bush has shown a real lack of leadership in avoiding or solving these problems. A president's primary role is to lead, and I don't feel Bush has done a good job at that. |
I don't know that we have much of a disagreement regarding overall leadership over an 8 year time span. Where I get charged up is when no one defends or stands up to what is a clear piling on by multiple users with zero consideration for the other side's positions. I have argued against abortion - even though I personally favor it. I have argued against homosexuality - even though I personally care less. I have defended this administration and even this war - even though there are particulars that I disagree with. To me, that is insuring that this admittedly liberal group doesn't get too full of themselves. Now there are some issues like gun rights and global warming that I have very set views on, and I rarely if ever argue outside my deep set feelings. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 11:06:26 AM · #742 |
Well, I was going to save this for Tuesday, but since I'm dropping my ballot off today and this thread is all over the place anyway, I thought it was appropriate.
Good song for those who like an accessible Reggae sound. Michael Franti and Spearhead's "Yell Fire!"
A revolution never come with a warning
A revolution never sends you an omen
A revolution just arrived like the morning
Ring the alarm we come to wake up the snoring
They tellin' you to never worry about the future
They tellin' you to never worry about the torture
They tellin' you that you'll never see the horror
Spend it all today and we will bill you tomorrow
Three piece suits and bank accounts in Bahamas
Wall street crime will never send you to the slammer
Tell all the children in the arms of their mammas
The F-15 is a homocide bomber
TV commercials for a pop a pill culture
Drug companies circling like a vulture
Ameriraqi babies with a G.I. Joe father
Ten years from now is anybody gonna bother?
Everyone addicted to the same nicotine
Everyone addicted to the same gasoline
Everyone addicted to a technicolour screen
Everybody tryin' to get their hands on the same green
From the banks of the river to the banks of the greedy
All of the riches taken back by the needy
We come from the country and we come from the city
You play us on the record, you can play us on the CD
Yell Fire, yo, yo, yo
Here we come here we come
Fire, yo, yo , yo, yo
Revolution a comin'
Fire, yo, yo, yo, yo
Fire, yo, yo, yo, yo
Go Obama! :)
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 11:29:56 AM · #743 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I have argued against abortion - even though I personally favor it. I have argued against homosexuality - even though I personally care less. I have defended this administration and even this war - even though there are particulars that I disagree with. To me, that is insuring that this admittedly liberal group doesn't get too full of themselves. |
Thank you oh so much for your paternalistic condescension. Wherever would we be without it? |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 11:46:35 AM · #744 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I was going to save this for Tuesday, but since I'm dropping my ballot off today and this thread is all over the place anyway, I thought it was appropriate.
Good song for those who like an accessible Reggae sound. Michael Franti and Spearhead's "Yell Fire!"
A revolution never come with a warning
A revolution never sends you an omen
You play us on the record, you can play us on the CD
Yell Fire, yo, yo, yo
Here we come here we come
Fire, yo, yo , yo, yo
Revolution a comin'
Fire, yo, yo, yo, yo
Fire, yo, yo, yo, yo
Go Obama! :) |
While NJ and F debate 4x's and Hummers, why don't we have a parallel discussion centered around Reggae music and our knowledge of the same. :P I'm sure it could be tied into US Election 08. Geesh... |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 12:17:58 PM · #745 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
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. |
Curious. Why is FactCheck.org not impartial? Can you back that up? |
I originally thought that factcheck.org was impartial - primarily due to the many uses here and even pasted it into my favorites to have ready daily access. Then I came accross a report (which I cannot provide a link to as I have forgotten where I read/heard it) that indicated that the number of findings reported by factcheck were disproportionally in favor of Obama. Now one explaination could be that the results actually do favor Obama and therefore this report was inaccurate. So I choose to start reading the conclusions more carefully for a few days to decide for myself. I have not came to a conclusion yet - and until I get some outside verifiable evidence (that I believe), then they are currently off the list as purely unbiased. They may be the best we have, but I am not immediately of the opinion that they carry no bias. |
Sir, with all due respect, I ask for a proof again. I can say anything I want here in Shakespearean English.. but that wouldnt make it true. But in a respected discussion, both parties would honor some evidence, please. A statement without facts or evidence is no better than a Fox blabber show.
Do you still not see what I meant by you just putting it out there with no facts?
Also, I gave you common (random) folk's own words in support of why Fox is so popular. You chose to ignore it. It was NOt from factcheck.org. Why would you ignore that unless you dont know what it is to have a fact based conversation?
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 12:18:11. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 12:19:46 PM · #746 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I have argued against abortion - even though I personally favor it. I have argued against homosexuality - even though I personally care less. I have defended this administration and even this war - even though there are particulars that I disagree with. |
Why??? To what end?
You certainly do not seem to come across to many here as anything but an annoying distraction from the subject at hand.
Not that you're not perfectly entitled to be here, but if you don't like the people here, or the direction of the conversation, why bother?
Originally posted by Flash:
To me, that is insuring that this admittedly liberal group doesn't get too full of themselves. |
How incredibly pompous, arrogant, and condescending!
Not that you're even remotely capable of said goal.
Kinda reminds me of a fly at a picnic.....buzzes around annoying people, but is basically full of shit.
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 12:24:51.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 12:20:13 PM · #747 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by neophyte:
I think everyone here is overestimating the power of the Prez elect.....The president can only propose these policies. By the time they pass through both houses, they'll be hard to recognize....I guess it makes for good discussion though. |
Especially in light of how the current administration is wholly to blame for a host of this country's maladies. In other words, if the powers are limited as you suggest and I agree with, then how is EVERYTHING Bush's fault. It isn't. If the decay of Detroit and Michigan is not the fault of those long time liberal admisistrations, then how can our country's decay be all the fault of this one President. It can't. |
I would honestly argue that it's not all Bush's fault, but I would also argue that Bush has shown a real lack of leadership in avoiding or solving these problems. A president's primary role is to lead, and I don't feel Bush has done a good job at that. |
I don't know that we have much of a disagreement regarding overall leadership over an 8 year time span. Where I get charged up is when no one defends or stands up to what is a clear piling on by multiple users with zero consideration for the other side's positions. I have argued against abortion - even though I personally favor it. I have argued against homosexuality - even though I personally care less. I have defended this administration and even this war - even though there are particulars that I disagree with. To me, that is insuring that this admittedly liberal group doesn't get too full of themselves. Now there are some issues like gun rights and global warming that I have very set views on, and I rarely if ever argue outside my deep set feelings. |
Read again:
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. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 12:26:52 PM · #748 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
While NJ and F debate 4x's and Hummers, why don't we have a parallel discussion centered around Reggae music and our knowledge of the same. :P I'm sure it could be tied into US Election 08. Geesh... |
Wasn't really much of a debate and my point was both relevance to the lack of facts and that most of what the man says doesn't seem to be supported by any.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 12:32:47 PM · #749 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by mpeters:
While NJ and F debate 4x's and Hummers, why don't we have a parallel discussion centered around Reggae music and our knowledge of the same. :P I'm sure it could be tied into US Election 08. Geesh... |
Wasn't really much of a debate and my point was both relevance to the lack of facts and that most of what the man says doesn't seem to be supported by any. |
I was kinda enjoying it but my sarcasm go the the best of me--- I know nothing about 4x4's (or Reggae for that matter). |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 12:42:40 PM · #750 |
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. |
|
