DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The Presidental BS conference
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 241, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/10/2009 11:58:08 AM · #26
Is Obama keeping his promises

Lest anyone get the impression that I have turned to the "other" side.
02/10/2009 12:02:21 PM · #27
Originally posted by Flash:

His rehotoric is consistent with the liberal victimhood position

Originally posted by Flash:

Lest anyone get the impression that I have turned to the "other" side.

Fat chance. :-/
02/10/2009 12:11:02 PM · #28
Originally posted by Flash:

As a registered Obama "non-fan", I thought his opening and subsequent answers were well done. He followed the basic pattern of telling you what he was going to tell you, then he told you, followed by telling you what he just told you. Same principle followed by every news reporter in every paper published. (This is the reason that some people can read a dozen or more newspapers a day as they only read 1/3rd of each article). I listen very carefully to each word, the phrasing, the body language, the eye movement, the breathing and most importantly the veins on the side of the neck. Obama did a very good presentation. I kept seeing Bill Clinton in the mannerisms and ease at which he stood at the podium. His entrance walk was confident, his initial opening remarks facial expression was serious, and his exit walk was tall with shoulders back. Every visible indication of confidence and completion of the task. His delivery was articulate, with only a couple of minor word stumbles. He was well prepared for the questions and clearly planned ahead on the call list. He even appeared to ensure that a good "mix" of networks were represented. He did not show favoritism via race. Even FOX was called on to ask a question.

His position that the critics have lost credibility had resonnance, however I'm not sure he understands that his party was in control the last 2 years. His rehotoric is consistent with the liberal victimhood position ("it's not my fault - I inherited this mess - and if I fail - well it's still the repubs who got us here"). Not quite true. But his delivery was articulate, confident, and imo successful.


The Dems in control of what, Congress?

You talk as if the control of the Congress equates to control of the nation, the Dems being in control (by a very slim margin) of the Congress simply meant that Bush could no longer do whatever he wanted and had to work with the other side vs. running roughshod over them on everything no matter how reprehensible.
02/10/2009 12:51:16 PM · #29
Originally posted by Flash:

Lest anyone get the impression that I have turned to the "other" side.

No, I wouldn't expect anyone getting "information" from a blog at Faux News to see daylight. You're drinking from a poisoned well. It's all fine and dandy to criticize taking 10% from defense spending in favor of domestic programs, but the other approach was hardly an improvement. You cannot point to any part of the stimulus plan that's more wasteful than a useless pile of rubble in a foreign country!
02/10/2009 12:51:41 PM · #30
Originally posted by Spazmo99:


The Dems in control of what, Congress?

You talk as if the control of the Congress equates to control of the nation, the Dems being in control (by a very slim margin) of the Congress simply meant that Bush could no longer do whatever he wanted and had to work with the other side vs. running roughshod over them on everything no matter how reprehensible.


You know, it's so hard to get people to understand that. They think because the Dem's had a very slight margin in congress, that they ran the whole country. Does that mean that when Clinton was in office and the Republican's had the majority, that the Republicans ran the country. Maybe the stain on the dress was from a Republican!
02/10/2009 01:00:24 PM · #31
LOL

Originally posted by bmartuch:

Maybe the stain on the dress was from a Republican!
02/10/2009 01:10:21 PM · #32
Originally posted by Flash:

Is Obama keeping his promises
Lest anyone get the impression that I have turned to the "other" side.


Okay, if only because I really like to understand where a person is coming from, and, because this guy is tied to UMD, I had to look him up. Here are a couple of articles that popped out at me:

Abstract quote: "Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise." In other words, giving women the right to vote has a direct correlation to the growth size of state and federal governments.

Abstract quote: "...we find consistent significant evidence that legalizing abortions increased murders by over 7%." This is after the fact, not including abortion in the murder total. Their theory is that murder has gone up since Roe v. Wade was tried so there is a correlation to the statistics.

At any rate, you can access his abstracts and articles here. He provides interesting takes on guns, gun control, crime, policing, and the like. I don't agree with some of his correlations, but it provides an interesting counterpoint. I really like knowing from what direction editorial comment is coming...

carry on...
02/10/2009 01:15:36 PM · #33
Originally posted by scalvert:

You cannot point to any part of the stimulus plan that's more wasteful than a useless pile of rubble in a foreign country!


Absolutely right! And when Obama gets this package thru the congress I want to start seeing concrete plans for removing troops from Iraq and doing away with the torture palace in Gitmo. Iraq really seems to be showing great promise in the ability to govern and protect itself lately.
Then I'd like to see us move toward leaving Afghanistan in the next few years. Nothing busts a budget faster than warfare.
02/10/2009 01:22:34 PM · #34
Originally posted by fir3bird:

Nothing busts a budget faster than warfare.


It would be nice if that were true, but for what it's worth gearing up the war machine has bailed us out of serious slumps very nicely in the past, and that may be part of the problem this country faces, is that this sort of thinking is now kind of ingrained at the very top.

R.
02/10/2009 01:23:04 PM · #35
Originally posted by dahkota:


Abstract quote: "...we find consistent significant evidence that legalizing abortions increased murders by over 7%." This is after the fact, not including abortion in the murder total. Their theory is that murder has gone up since Roe v. Wade was tried so there is a correlation to the statistics.

At any rate, you can access his abstracts and articles here. He provides interesting takes on guns, gun control, crime, policing, and the like. I don't agree with some of his correlations, but it provides an interesting counterpoint. I really like knowing from what direction editorial comment is coming...

carry on...


Interesting. A quick search found a paper reporting the exact opposite - legalized abortion has resulted in a negative relationship with crime: Donohue and Levitt (2001). And then a paper saying their analysis was not done proper, and in fact there is no correlation (Joyce 2004), and then a rebuttal saying that the detractor's method was flawed (Donahue and Levitt 2004).

I don't know social sciences, but I am under the impression one could come up with any kind of correlation you wanted between two factors (abortion and crime/ womens suffrage and government growth) depending on how you collect and analyze data
02/10/2009 01:55:32 PM · #36
I find it amusing, if not rolling-in-the-floor-pounding-fists-amid-tears-of-laughter hilarious, that the brunt of Republican criticism (and Flash's linked blog) is that this stimulus package is too expensive and doesn't focus enough on things that matter like schools. 100% of House Repubs vote against it on those grounds. In order to gain support in the Senate, Democrats yield some concessions to the Repubs... and the result is a bill that costs $19B MORE than the house version and cuts school construction. Hello?

Instead of "wasteful" programs, more funds will be focused on tax cuts for home and car buyers... who have a tough time getting credit due to the very crisis this is supposed to address. Hey, everyone loves a discount, but people don't tend to buy big ticket items when they're afraid of losing their jobs (or already have), especially if they have to get a loan from a company scrutinizing them over the same fears. Honestly, I think Repubs are more interested in demonstrating their clout than tackling issues, and if the bill had been secretly drafted by RNC leaders they'd still find some reason to vote against it.
02/10/2009 02:17:45 PM · #37
Originally posted by pidge:

Originally posted by dahkota:


Abstract quote: "...we find consistent significant evidence that legalizing abortions increased murders by over 7%." This is after the fact, not including abortion in the murder total. Their theory is that murder has gone up since Roe v. Wade was tried so there is a correlation to the statistics.

At any rate, you can access his abstracts and articles here. He provides interesting takes on guns, gun control, crime, policing, and the like. I don't agree with some of his correlations, but it provides an interesting counterpoint. I really like knowing from what direction editorial comment is coming...

carry on...


Interesting. A quick search found a paper reporting the exact opposite - legalized abortion has resulted in a negative relationship with crime: Donohue and Levitt (2001). And then a paper saying their analysis was not done proper, and in fact there is no correlation (Joyce 2004), and then a rebuttal saying that the detractor's method was flawed (Donahue and Levitt 2004).

I don't know social sciences, but I am under the impression one could come up with any kind of correlation you wanted between two factors (abortion and crime/ womens suffrage and government growth) depending on how you collect and analyze data


Correlations are the great hocus-pocus of statistics (a field that is filled with hocus pocus, LOL) anyway. There is not always cause-and-effect. It's like you painted your house white, and a week later you were burgled, so you decide "white houses attract burglars" and refuse to live in one forever after...

R.
02/10/2009 02:20:45 PM · #38
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It's like you painted your house white, and a week later you were burgled, so you decide "white houses attract burglars" and refuse to live in one forever after...

I don't think the White House has ever been burglarized despite its well known location and obvious items of value, therefore the opposite must be true. ;-)
02/10/2009 02:25:59 PM · #39
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It's like you painted your house white, and a week later you were burgled, so you decide "white houses attract burglars" and refuse to live in one forever after...

I don't think the White House has ever been burglarized despite its well known location and obvious items of value, therefore the opposite must be true. ;-)


LOL...

It may not have been burglarized, but pilferage has always been a problem. Going WAY back. There are records of people like Millard Fillmore complaining of missing silverware, stuff like that. Souvenirs, ya know :-)

R.
02/10/2009 02:35:53 PM · #40
Originally posted by fir3bird:

Originally posted by scalvert:

You cannot point to any part of the stimulus plan that's more wasteful than a useless pile of rubble in a foreign country!


Absolutely right! And when Obama gets this package thru the congress I want to start seeing concrete plans for removing troops from Iraq and doing away with the torture palace in Gitmo. Iraq really seems to be showing great promise in the ability to govern and protect itself lately.
Then I'd like to see us move toward leaving Afghanistan in the next few years. Nothing busts a budget faster than warfare.


Based on the first debate, and some of what was on his website during the campaign, my understanding was that Obama wanted to finish in Iraq so that we could focus more on Afganistan.
02/11/2009 12:37:04 AM · #41
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


Correlations are the great hocus-pocus of statistics (a field that is filled with hocus pocus, LOL) anyway. There is not always cause-and-effect. It's like you painted your house white, and a week later you were burgled, so you decide "white houses attract burglars" and refuse to live in one forever after...

R.


nothing like correlations :)
02/11/2009 08:54:03 AM · #42
Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by Flash:

Is Obama keeping his promises
Lest anyone get the impression that I have turned to the "other" side.


Okay, if only because I really like to understand where a person is coming from, and, because this guy is tied to UMD, I had to look him up. Here are a couple of articles that popped out at me:

Abstract quote: "Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise." In other words, giving women the right to vote has a direct correlation to the growth size of state and federal governments.

Abstract quote: "...we find consistent significant evidence that legalizing abortions increased murders by over 7%." This is after the fact, not including abortion in the murder total. Their theory is that murder has gone up since Roe v. Wade was tried so there is a correlation to the statistics.

At any rate, you can access his abstracts and articles here. He provides interesting takes on guns, gun control, crime, policing, and the like. I don't agree with some of his correlations, but it provides an interesting counterpoint. I really like knowing from what direction editorial comment is coming...

carry on...


I am well aware of John Lott's critics. However as a professor and "learned" man, his views are interesting to me - thus his opinion piece link. However, I have yet to read a rebuttal to his points on Obabam's failing to keep his campaign promises, only banter about either the messenger or republicans - neither of which have anything to do with Obama keeping his campaign promises. The lattitute that Obama supporters are willing to give him, indeed illuminates their partisanship. As Scalvert finds humor in the apparent hypocriscy of republicans, I can assure you that there is plenty to find amusing on the dems side of the aisle.

Even with my partisan glasses on, I could still find cudos for Obama. FWIW.
02/11/2009 08:57:03 AM · #43
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by fir3bird:

Nothing busts a budget faster than warfare.


It would be nice if that were true, but for what it's worth gearing up the war machine has bailed us out of serious slumps very nicely in the past, and that may be part of the problem this country faces, is that this sort of thinking is now kind of ingrained at the very top.

R.


I suspect that this was the "real" reason for Gulf War II and that we would have tumbled into this mess a decade earlier had it not been for the "war".
02/11/2009 09:28:34 AM · #44
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by fir3bird:

Nothing busts a budget faster than warfare.


It would be nice if that were true, but for what it's worth gearing up the war machine has bailed us out of serious slumps very nicely in the past, and that may be part of the problem this country faces, is that this sort of thinking is now kind of ingrained at the very top.

R.


I suspect that this was the "real" reason for Gulf War II and that we would have tumbled into this mess a decade earlier had it not been for the "war".


That's basically what I think too. I think our Iraq adventures were economically motivated. Sigh...
02/11/2009 09:35:42 AM · #45
Originally posted by Flash:

I am well aware of John Lott's critics. However as a professor and "learned" man, his views are interesting to me...

William Ayers is a professor and "learned" man. Ted Kaczynski was a professor and "learned" man...

Originally posted by Flash:

However, I have yet to read a rebuttal to his points on Obama's failing to keep his campaign promises... Scalvert finds humor in the apparent hypocriscy of republicans...

You apparently missed the point that Obama was criticized for spending too much and cutting back on education when Republican senators fought to increase spending and cut provisions for school construction. Moreover, there would be an outcry for not going far enough if he DID stick to the original proposal while the economy continues to tank. There's little reason to rebut each point when the major arguments are so obviously flawed, and I think it's about time we had a leader willing to compromise and adapt to changing conditions rather than doggedly pursue every policy.

The very same guys who criticized Obama's campaign promises are now trying to criticize him for not sticking to the letter of those policies they didn't like in the first place! It doesn't take a professor or a learned man to see an agenda here.

Message edited by author 2009-02-11 10:08:49.
02/11/2009 10:47:05 AM · #46
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:

I am well aware of John Lott's critics. However as a professor and "learned" man, his views are interesting to me...

William Ayers is a professor and "learned" man. Ted Kaczynski was a professor and "learned" man...


...and their views are interesting to me. I would not hesitate to post an opinion piece of theirs if it supported a particular point I was trying to make.
02/11/2009 10:51:35 AM · #47
Originally posted by scalvert:

...there would be an outcry for not going far enough if he DID stick to the original proposal while the economy continues to tank.


I know that the market wasn't too receptive yesterday to either news of the bill passing the Senate nor the greatly anticipated revelations from the Turbo Tax man (Geitner). The commentary last night was that the "details" were lacking.
02/11/2009 11:28:02 AM · #48
Originally posted by Flash:

... I have yet to read a rebuttal to his points on Obabam's failing to keep his campaign promises ...

Read my lips -- NO candidate has EVER been able to "keep" all their campaign promises ...
02/11/2009 11:31:19 AM · #49
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by fir3bird:

Nothing busts a budget faster than warfare.


It would be nice if that were true, but for what it's worth gearing up the war machine has bailed us out of serious slumps very nicely in the past, and that may be part of the problem this country faces, is that this sort of thinking is now kind of ingrained at the very top.

R.


I suspect that this was the "real" reason for Gulf War II and that we would have tumbled into this mess a decade earlier had it not been for the "war".


That's basically what I think too. I think our Iraq adventures were economically motivated. Sigh...


I think there was a good measure of hubris based on the early successes in Afghanistan coupled with W's desire to stick it to the guy who made his daddy look bad.
02/11/2009 01:37:39 PM · #50
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Flash:

... I have yet to read a rebuttal to his points on Obabam's failing to keep his campaign promises ...

Read my lips -- NO candidate has EVER been able to "keep" all their campaign promises ...


I agree. My point is merely the ease at which those who supported Obama are excusing his violations. Some of which were pretty core points in his election rethoric. Regardless of whetehr you care for the messenger (John Lott), his opinion article raised some striking contradictions for the sitting president. If you campaign on a thing that is part and parcel to your central theme "Change you can believe in" and you deliver the same as has always been, then maybe those who voted for you were misled. Now there are several words for those who mislead - and some were used quite extensively in Rant over the last 8 years. Of course, it may be different if it is "your man" who is doing the misleading. ;-)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/27/2020 02:20:38 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/27/2020 02:20:38 AM EDT.