|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/31/2008 10:39:01 PM · #801 |
This thread looks like it would be a great read, but I'm too busy eating candy to read it. Can someone give me a one sentence synopsis of the whole thing so I get some instant gratification here? Thanks...
Joe the Plumber in '12!
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 10:44:26 PM · #802 |
Originally posted by toddhead:
This thread looks like it would be a great read, but I'm too busy eating candy to read it. Can someone give me a one sentence synopsis of the whole thing so I get some instant gratification here? Thanks...
Joe the Plumber in '12! |
No..................8>)
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 10:55:07 PM · #803 |
Originally posted by toddhead:
This thread looks like it would be a great read, but I'm too busy eating candy to read it. Can someone give me a one sentence synopsis of the whole thing so I get some instant gratification here? Thanks...
Joe the Plumber in '12! |
McCain and Obama walked into a bar and were immediately set upon by their respective fans, and only got away by jumping into some 4x4s and increasing taxes so much that everyone couldn't afford the gas to chase them. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 11:41:59 PM · #804 |
Ok, from now on nobody's allowed to post unless they have something insightful and new to say about the topic, which is not hummers or any other chapter of the kama sutra.
damn, I broke my own rule. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 12:13:05 AM · #805 |
"Running for President feels exactly like being President. The ordinary experiences of life melt away, are replaced by a constant swirl of limousines and money, jet planes and prepared statements. Secret Service men and gorgeous political groupies. There is an almost infinite sense of power and prestige. It feels wonderful, which is why it is so terrible....
"The entire Presidential afflatus reinforces the notion that a few people are different and superior, capable of solving the problems of the faceless mob. That notion was horseshit in monarchical times and it is horseshit today--not that the medieval monarchs were much different from our Presidents now. The point is that people have always been capable of solving their own problems, of living creative, joyous and peaceful lives, when left alone."
--Karl Hess (1976)
*Note: The references are based on experiences during the 1964 election, when Mr. Hess was an advisor to and speechwriter for Senator Barry Goldwater. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 01:26:23 AM · #806 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Ok, from now on nobody's allowed to post unless they have something insightful and new to say about the topic, which is not hummers or any other chapter of the kama sutra.
damn, I broke my own rule. |
We already know you're not a rule-follower, so it's okay ;) |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 12:16:17 PM · #807 |
Earlier DrAchoo was in discussion defending Obama's aunt and her living quarters. He portrayed my lack of knowledge about the particular quarters as as evidence of my limited wordliness and commented that he had been there. This article from a non-FOX source indicates that Obam'as aunt has been living in the US illegally for the last 4 years and made illegal donations to Obama's campaign. She is in public housing (I presume at taxpayer expense). Now I suspect those on the left will chalk this up to as Hillary said "that right wing conspiracy". Regardless of who outed this story, it begs the question I asked regarding taking care of one's own instead of having the government do it. Obama certainly has the wealth to help his relatives but instead would rather have others pay for her housing. That my friends is exactly my point. That is the difference between us. In my state there is great financial turmoil. Many many people are losing jobs, homes and families are being torn apart due to the stresses. Several I know are working into retirement years to help grandchildren or daughters make ends meet. Several I know are declining non-necessities to help family and friends. Then yesterday, a 27 year old comes in to have her 4th baby. A different father for each one. The grandmother and sisters come in, filthy, grungy and have frickin' Blackberrys. I don't have a Blackberry! Within my circle, we wouldn't even consider owning that type of luxury, or getting french manicures, or the other wasteful expenditures, when our family members needed help. I simply don't get it. Obama wants everyone to pay for those that won't. Base it on provable need and I'll agree. If it ios facts that are required, then how about we require some facts from those that want the money.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2008 01:11:06 PM · #808 |
| He's dug himself so deep and dark, light frightens him. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 01:16:22 PM · #809 |
Lets add a little levity to this whole discussion. Everything is clickable, including the panels on the front of the desk. Be sure to click more than once for hilarious results.
President Palin
Message edited by author 2008-11-01 13:17:04. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 02:18:26 PM · #810 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Earlier DrAchoo was in discussion defending Obama's aunt and her living quarters. He portrayed my lack of knowledge about the particular quarters as as evidence of my limited wordliness and commented that he had been there. This article from a non-FOX source indicates that Obam'as aunt has been living in the US illegally for the last 4 years and made illegal donations to Obama's campaign. She is in public housing (I presume at taxpayer expense). Now I suspect those on the left will chalk this up to as Hillary said "that right wing conspiracy". Regardless of who outed this story, it begs the question I asked regarding taking care of one's own instead of having the government do it. Obama certainly has the wealth to help his relatives but instead would rather have others pay for her housing. That my friends is exactly my point. That is the difference between us. In my state there is great financial turmoil. Many many people are losing jobs, homes and families are being torn apart due to the stresses. Several I know are working into retirement years to help grandchildren or daughters make ends meet. Several I know are declining non-necessities to help family and friends. Then yesterday, a 27 year old comes in to have her 4th baby. A different father for each one. The grandmother and sisters come in, filthy, grungy and have frickin' Blackberrys. I don't have a Blackberry! Within my circle, we wouldn't even consider owning that type of luxury, or getting french manicures, or the other wasteful expenditures, when our family members needed help. I simply don't get it. Obama wants everyone to pay for those that won't. Base it on provable need and I'll agree. If it ios facts that are required, then how about we require some facts from those that want the money. |
Flash,
Ok I take this source as credible, to honor your attempt. And I also agree this is all true... what is reported in this article. Now I quote from the same article here:
"Onyango is part of Obama's large paternal family, with many related to him by blood that he barely knows. Obama first met Onyango when he traveled to Africa as an adult..."
"Obama provided no assistance in her getting a tourist visa..."
Now, wont you say it is a good thing on his part NOT to support illigal immigration? Why should he assist her by providing resources providing a safe haven illegally?
And even if he did, wont you be the first one to quote he that Obama is linked with illegal immigration activities?
I understand what you tried to say with taking money from those who earned it, and giving to those who dont deserve it. But c'mon... this is a bad example. His aunt is not even in U.S. legally... and he didnt support her get in here (or he would have done things about her). Something tells me you should respect this attitude of his, and not put it out of context with some other example of people losing jobs.
And when you said you do not own a blackbery because your family needs help.. so you stay away from unnecessary expenses. ..and I applaud that. But are you equating that with assisting an illegal act of trying to immigrate to a country with no sound reason?
Message edited by author 2008-11-01 14:34:41.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2008 02:22:22 PM · #811 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
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:-) |
1. I had completely missed your reply contained in the first part of the above quote. In reading it now, I'll comment with the following:
a. I said that factcheck.org was not immediately acceptable to me without more assessment and further that it may be the best we have. Eqsite then replied with information about factcheck being founded by a Mccain supporter. That is new news to me and I'll verify it. It might change the dynamics or it might not.
2. I have not dismissed every source and even used Ray's source "the St Petersburg Times" in an example of my own.
3. You contuinue to claim that Obama's tax benefit begins at 116K instead of 66k and attempted to correct me, even though I provided a link (CNN article) which showed a $200 advantage at 66K. I am not sure what you definition of savings is, but to me $200 saved is better than $200 taken. So to continue to state that I wil not use any sources or facts is wrong.
4. You quote the Tax Policy Center in saying that both plans will add to the deficit. I agree and use this as further evidence that Obama is less than truthful - even referencing a morning article with Obama's own campaign hedging on his tax promises due to the financial crisis. To me that simply supports my claim that Obama is not truthful on his tax policy. We both know (or should know) that Obama cannot reduce taxes on 95% of americans (working or otherwise). This crisis won't allow it. Yet it continues as a campaign point. A false one. One that you seem ready to ignore. The very action you are charging me with.
5. I asked you for independent sources which you countered with by asking me for sources. I guess neither of us will offer up any sources.
6. You believe more in Obama's ideals than McCains. Thats fair. Is this factcheck verifiable? Do I need or require proof of this before I accept it from you? No. You typed as a fact, therefore unl;ess you give me reason to doubt you, then I accept is as so. You believe Obama's ideals better. Great. Which ideals are these? The ones that he shares with Reverand Wright? Or Louis Farakhan? Or William Ayers? Or Resko? Or Khalidi? Or are they the ideals he talks about in this presiddentail campaign where he himself states that he is targeting moderate republicans. Are you saying that you agree with moderate republican values?
7. I may very well choose to end participation - but if and when I do, it will be on my terms, not because you are irritated by a fly at a picnic. |
Thanks for the reply. You seemed to take it all in another depth for discussion, and I can reply to each of them individually, but we need to agree on a non-commercial nominally impartial source first (it will be hard to find a commercial yet bias free source). I respectfully refuse to proceed with a jungle discussion without putting base to the source of the facts first. And so rather than putting more points out in the sea, I propose this simple 3 step plan:
[1] I propose NPR.org as a non-commercial nominally impartial source of information to base our further discussion upon. It has been equally accused to be a conservative as well as a liberal biased source at different times (FACT: See here). Do you agree? If yes, ignore points [2] and [3] and lets move forward with the discussion. If not, lets move to point [2].
[2] Since you do not agree with the source I provided, go ahead and propose a non-commercial news source that is nominally impartial (along with facts link) and I will see if I agree to that and we continue a meaningful discussion. If I agree, we ignore point [3] and move ahead with the discussion, ONLY citing facts from this agreed upon source. If I dont agree, we will move to point [3].
[3] We both fail to agree on a single impartial source. In this case, I have nothing further to discuss with you in an honorable and respectable gentleman's discussion. Henceforth, you will not claim that nobody stood up to a logical and factual discussion with you in this forum, and I will not either. However, you were provided with a non-commercial marginally impartial source in [1] that you didnt agree to proceed with.
[4] If you refuse to choose any of the above 3 choices, I will take it that you do not want to lead a logical fact-backed conversation... and although I cannot ask you to not to post here anymore, you will come across as a hollow speaker with no facts and no willingness to have an informed discussion and I will stop paying attention to your posts personally, advising others to do the same. You will obviously be free to do the same.
So what is your choice? [1], [2], or [3]? |
Flash, do you want to continue this discussion or not? Everytime there is a talk about a logical approach, you seem to shy away.
These are three simple steps. Which one do you choose? [/quote]
ETA: For the last time, you avoided to stand up to a logical conversation (see my last post) by avoiding to try to agree on a reliable non-commercial impartial source. This is proof enough for me that you do not want to have a respectful conversation. I instead agreed to the source you presented as credible, and continued to discuss.
Exactly this, my friend, shows why we should be avoiding baseless random arguments with you. I will hence be ignoring your perspectives in this forum, and will be advising others to do so too.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2008 02:28:22 PM · #812 |
| How about quoting appropriately and succinctly? :-P |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 02:29:54 PM · #813 |
Originally posted by BAMartin:
Lets add a little levity to this whole discussion. Everything is clickable, including the panels on the front of the desk. Be sure to click more than once for hilarious results.
President Palin |
Ehehehhhh. Pretty funny.
Message edited by author 2008-11-01 14:36:17.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2008 02:31:41 PM · #814 |
Originally posted by Louis:
How about quoting appropriately and succinctly? :-P |
See what it comes down to Louis to try to engage someone into a focussed discussion? :-) Well the quoting wont be needed anymore. That discussion failed (point [4] in the last post).
Message edited by author 2008-11-01 14:33:55.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2008 02:32:49 PM · #815 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Earlier DrAchoo was in discussion defending Obama's aunt and her living quarters. He portrayed my lack of knowledge about the particular quarters as as evidence of my limited wordliness and commented that he had been there. This article from a non-FOX source indicates that Obam'as aunt has been living in the US illegally for the last 4 years and made illegal donations to Obama's campaign. She is in public housing (I presume at taxpayer expense). Now I suspect those on the left will chalk this up to as Hillary said "that right wing conspiracy". Regardless of who outed this story, it begs the question I asked regarding taking care of one's own instead of having the government do it. Obama certainly has the wealth to help his relatives but instead would rather have others pay for her housing. That my friends is exactly my point. That is the difference between us. In my state there is great financial turmoil. Many many people are losing jobs, homes and families are being torn apart due to the stresses. Several I know are working into retirement years to help grandchildren or daughters make ends meet. Several I know are declining non-necessities to help family and friends. Then yesterday, a 27 year old comes in to have her 4th baby. A different father for each one. The grandmother and sisters come in, filthy, grungy and have frickin' Blackberrys. I don't have a Blackberry! Within my circle, we wouldn't even consider owning that type of luxury, or getting french manicures, or the other wasteful expenditures, when our family members needed help. I simply don't get it. Obama wants everyone to pay for those that won't. Base it on provable need and I'll agree. If it ios facts that are required, then how about we require some facts from those that want the money. |
Nice try.
It's this kind of diatribe that really makes me shake my head at people that are more interested in simply spreading rhetoric and negativity and are obviously just trying to rile people up.
For one thing, you don't know the personal histories of the family you're using as your example. Without that, any call you make is a simple and uninformed assumption based on your own biased views.
Two, you talk about how "Within my circle, people wouldn't even think about owning that kind of luxury..." yet you have some great camera gear, and hang out in a Hummer forum and discuss how wonderful they are. How can we take you seriously?
You keep wanting this "Provable" stuff, but as someone already pointed out, your requirements of proof just keep getting elevated until it's simply unprovable. A line you wrote in a former post really cemented just where you stand for me, you said something along the lines of waiting until you can find proof from a source you believe.
You've shown time and time again that you're unwilling to believe anything that doesn't fit snug into your pre-set belief system, so that's a nicely clever little cop-out.
So, I shake my head, and am content to know that for the most part, thinkers like you are a dying breed and the world is moving towards something better. Slowly perhaps, but it's moving. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 02:36:51 PM · #816 |
Originally posted by Louis:
How about quoting appropriately and succinctly? :-P |
I vote for the latter, if the former proves too difficult. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 02:58:22 PM · #817 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Louis:
How about quoting appropriately and succinctly? :-P |
I vote for the latter, if the former proves too difficult. |
"I have made this [letter] longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter."
--Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662), "Lettres provinciales", letter 16, 1657 |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 04:47:26 PM · #818 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Flash, do you want to continue this discussion or not? |
I do.
I wanted to give it some serious thought due primarily to your one line about a civil discourse or something to that effect. I will reply shortly. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 05:09:13 PM · #819 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Earlier DrAchoo was in discussion defending Obama's aunt and her living quarters. He portrayed my lack of knowledge about the particular quarters as as evidence of my limited wordliness and commented that he had been there. This article from a non-FOX source indicates that Obam'as aunt has been living in the US illegally for the last 4 years and made illegal donations to Obama's campaign. She is in public housing (I presume at taxpayer expense). Now I suspect those on the left will chalk this up to as Hillary said "that right wing conspiracy". Regardless of who outed this story, it begs the question I asked regarding taking care of one's own instead of having the government do it. Obama certainly has the wealth to help his relatives but instead would rather have others pay for her housing. That my friends is exactly my point. That is the difference between us. In my state there is great financial turmoil. Many many people are losing jobs, homes and families are being torn apart due to the stresses. Several I know are working into retirement years to help grandchildren or daughters make ends meet. Several I know are declining non-necessities to help family and friends. Then yesterday, a 27 year old comes in to have her 4th baby. A different father for each one. The grandmother and sisters come in, filthy, grungy and have frickin' Blackberrys. I don't have a Blackberry! Within my circle, we wouldn't even consider owning that type of luxury, or getting french manicures, or the other wasteful expenditures, when our family members needed help. I simply don't get it. Obama wants everyone to pay for those that won't. Base it on provable need and I'll agree. If it ios facts that are required, then how about we require some facts from those that want the money. |
Nice try.
It's this kind of diatribe that really makes me shake my head at people that are more interested in simply spreading rhetoric and negativity and are obviously just trying to rile people up.
For one thing, you don't know the personal histories of the family you're using as your example. Without that, any call you make is a simple and uninformed assumption based on your own biased views.
Two, you talk about how "Within my circle, people wouldn't even think about owning that kind of luxury..." yet you have some great camera gear, and hang out in a Hummer forum and discuss how wonderful they are. How can we take you seriously?
You keep wanting this "Provable" stuff, but as someone already pointed out, your requirements of proof just keep getting elevated until it's simply unprovable. A line you wrote in a former post really cemented just where you stand for me, you said something along the lines of waiting until you can find proof from a source you believe.
You've shown time and time again that you're unwilling to believe anything that doesn't fit snug into your pre-set belief system, so that's a nicely clever little cop-out.
So, I shake my head, and am content to know that for the most part, thinkers like you are a dying breed and the world is moving towards something better. Slowly perhaps, but it's moving. |
A couple of points.
1. My property is acquired over years of savings and paid for by my wages.
2. My example was only an example. Nothing more. But as I've posted elsewhere, after working more than 3 decades in rat infested neighborhoods with the local residents the recipients of much government aid, I feel reasonably secure in my conclusion that this example is somewhat typical of the attitude that is generated when generations are government supported. Now it is entirely possible that this 27 year old mother had 4 meaningful relationships that resulted in these 4 children and the fathers were all employed and child support is paid to this mother. That is possible. Now is this scenario the norm or the exception. From my experience it would be very exceptional indeed.
3. The Blackberry and French manicures were simply the symbols I choose to illustrate the attitude. I have no problem with anyone buying anything they choose. But don't scam the government for necessities when you have the means to buy luxuries like Blackberrys and French manicures. This demonstrates no understanding on personal responsibility which in my opinion is exacerbated when government assitence is not tied to some form of responsible criteria. Before Medicaid picks up the tab for nursing home care (as in the elderly) there are requirements that their other assets (with some exceptions) must be spent or liquidated. Not that I like it, but if the government is picking up the tab, then should there be some criteria by which you cannot profit from it? Luxuries like Blackberrys and French manicures fall into the profit category to me.
4. I believe many things. I do not believe that simply because many spout the same line that it is true. Even if some source says so. For example - we had a long thread on global warming where all kinds of facts were presented from all these scientists. And some posters there were from the UK and hammering me on how obvious all this factual data is. Then this week we have London (I believe) recieving it earliest snow fall since 1920 and many there are now questioning the validity of the global warming claims. Just an example.
5. Regarding facts - please see my following post to Prash. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 05:35:36 PM · #820 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
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:-) |
1. I had completely missed your reply contained in the first part of the above quote. In reading it now, I'll comment with the following:
a. I said that factcheck.org was not immediately acceptable to me without more assessment and further that it may be the best we have. Eqsite then replied with information about factcheck being founded by a Mccain supporter. That is new news to me and I'll verify it. It might change the dynamics or it might not.
2. I have not dismissed every source and even used Ray's source "the St Petersburg Times" in an example of my own.
3. You contuinue to claim that Obama's tax benefit begins at 116K instead of 66k and attempted to correct me, even though I provided a link (CNN article) which showed a $200 advantage at 66K. I am not sure what you definition of savings is, but to me $200 saved is better than $200 taken. So to continue to state that I wil not use any sources or facts is wrong.
4. You quote the Tax Policy Center in saying that both plans will add to the deficit. I agree and use this as further evidence that Obama is less than truthful - even referencing a morning article with Obama's own campaign hedging on his tax promises due to the financial crisis. To me that simply supports my claim that Obama is not truthful on his tax policy. We both know (or should know) that Obama cannot reduce taxes on 95% of americans (working or otherwise). This crisis won't allow it. Yet it continues as a campaign point. A false one. One that you seem ready to ignore. The very action you are charging me with.
5. I asked you for independent sources which you countered with by asking me for sources. I guess neither of us will offer up any sources.
6. You believe more in Obama's ideals than McCains. Thats fair. Is this factcheck verifiable? Do I need or require proof of this before I accept it from you? No. You typed as a fact, therefore unl;ess you give me reason to doubt you, then I accept is as so. You believe Obama's ideals better. Great. Which ideals are these? The ones that he shares with Reverand Wright? Or Louis Farakhan? Or William Ayers? Or Resko? Or Khalidi? Or are they the ideals he talks about in this presiddentail campaign where he himself states that he is targeting moderate republicans. Are you saying that you agree with moderate republican values?
7. I may very well choose to end participation - but if and when I do, it will be on my terms, not because you are irritated by a fly at a picnic. |
Thanks for the reply. You seemed to take it all in another depth for discussion, and I can reply to each of them individually, but we need to agree on a non-commercial nominally impartial source first (it will be hard to find a commercial yet bias free source). I respectfully refuse to proceed with a jungle discussion without putting base to the source of the facts first. And so rather than putting more points out in the sea, I propose this simple 3 step plan:
[1] I propose NPR.org as a non-commercial nominally impartial source of information to base our further discussion upon. It has been equally accused to be a conservative as well as a liberal biased source at different times (FACT: See here). Do you agree? If yes, ignore points [2] and [3] and lets move forward with the discussion. If not, lets move to point [2].
[2] Since you do not agree with the source I provided, go ahead and propose a non-commercial news source that is nominally impartial (along with facts link) and I will see if I agree to that and we continue a meaningful discussion. If I agree, we ignore point [3] and move ahead with the discussion, ONLY citing facts from this agreed upon source. If I dont agree, we will move to point [3].
[3] We both fail to agree on a single impartial source. In this case, I have nothing further to discuss with you in an honorable and respectable gentleman's discussion. Henceforth, you will not claim that nobody stood up to a logical and factual discussion with you in this forum, and I will not either. However, you were provided with a non-commercial marginally impartial source in [1] that you didnt agree to proceed with.
[4] If you refuse to choose any of the above 3 choices, I will take it that you do not want to lead a logical fact-backed conversation... and although I cannot ask you to not to post here anymore, you will come across as a hollow speaker with no facts and no willingness to have an informed discussion and I will stop paying attention to your posts personally, advising others to do the same. You will obviously be free to do the same.
So what is your choice? [1], [2], or [3]? |
Flash, do you want to continue this discussion or not? Everytime there is a talk about a logical approach, you seem to shy away.
These are three simple steps. Which one do you choose? |
ETA: For the last time, you avoided to stand up to a logical conversation (see my last post) by avoiding to try to agree on a reliable non-commercial impartial source. This is proof enough for me that you do not want to have a respectful conversation. I instead agreed to the source you presented as credible, and continued to discuss.
Exactly this, my friend, shows why we should be avoiding baseless random arguments with you. I will hence be ignoring your perspectives in this forum, and will be advising others to do so too. [/quote]
1. I am not sure if your proposal is doable although I am intrigued at the thought of it.
2. The best part of your proposal was the sentence "I respectfully refuse to proceed with a jungle discussion without putting base to the source of the facts first." and the general tone of your post which reads to me as though you prefer our discussion to be civil.
3. NPR is a responsible source and I understand why you might choose it.
Here are my concerns;
1. What is the specific topic we will discuss? Is it Obama's tax plan. McCain's tax plan. Campaign rhetoic in general? False adds? etc. What specific topic are we limiting our discussion to?
2. Are we limited to only NPR as the sole provider of information - in other words, what if NPR didn't report on our particular topic? Are generally known facts useable? If generally known facts are useable then doesn't that kind of defeat our limiting to just one source.
3. For example - it is generally known as fact that Obama has promised a tax cut for anyone making under 250K. It is a generally known fact that the figure of 200K was also used by the campaign. It is a generally know fact that Biden has used the figure of 150K. And further that most recently Gov Bill Richardson used the figure of 120K. Now all of these are facts. Each of these numbers have been used. Yet I didn't have one single link to another source to prove them, as in my mind they are clearly known to anyone following this campaign and do not require source links to prove them. Anyone reading or watching this campaign would have come to know these truths. Now from these truths we must draw some conclusions.
4. Are our conclusions only limited to what NPR says is the conclusion or do we have the liberty to editorialize on the facts? For example - the facts of 250 and 200 and 150 and 120 are clearly out there in the general discussion. Now you may claim that is doesn't amount to squat, while I might claim it is further evidence of Obama's misrepresentations or changing positions or the reality that what he promises is not close to what he is actually going to do. In this case and example - are we limited to only what NPR says? If so, then there really is no need for a discussion at all, as NPR has already said it for us.
edit is simply some minor clean up
Message edited by author 2008-11-01 17:46:52. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 06:02:28 PM · #821 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Earlier DrAchoo was in discussion defending Obama's aunt and her living quarters. He portrayed my lack of knowledge about the particular quarters as as evidence of my limited wordliness and commented that he had been there. This article from a non-FOX source indicates that Obam'as aunt has been living in the US illegally for the last 4 years and made illegal donations to Obama's campaign. She is in public housing (I presume at taxpayer expense). Now I suspect those on the left will chalk this up to as Hillary said "that right wing conspiracy". Regardless of who outed this story, it begs the question I asked regarding taking care of one's own instead of having the government do it. Obama certainly has the wealth to help his relatives but instead would rather have others pay for her housing. That my friends is exactly my point. That is the difference between us. In my state there is great financial turmoil. Many many people are losing jobs, homes and families are being torn apart due to the stresses. Several I know are working into retirement years to help grandchildren or daughters make ends meet. Several I know are declining non-necessities to help family and friends. Then yesterday, a 27 year old comes in to have her 4th baby. A different father for each one. The grandmother and sisters come in, filthy, grungy and have frickin' Blackberrys. I don't have a Blackberry! Within my circle, we wouldn't even consider owning that type of luxury, or getting french manicures, or the other wasteful expenditures, when our family members needed help. I simply don't get it. Obama wants everyone to pay for those that won't. Base it on provable need and I'll agree. If it ios facts that are required, then how about we require some facts from those that want the money. |
I have only one thing to say about families and public office....
Billy Carter
|
|
|
|
11/01/2008 07:11:21 PM · #822 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have only one thing to say about families and public office....
Billy Carter |
mmmm...Billy Beer.
Message edited by author 2008-11-01 19:11:46. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 09:38:38 PM · #823 |
| I just read this story and was completely horrified. It seems a lot of republicans believe this is perfectly acceptable. Read the comments after the article too. Wow, just blows my mind... Woman denies candy to treat or treaters if their parents are Obama supporters |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 10:18:57 PM · #824 |
Well they could have just tricked the woman by saying their parents weren't Obama supporters.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2008 10:22:37 PM · #825 |
That's just sad. Slightly funny, but very very sad. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 06:27:43 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 06:27:43 AM EDT.
|
