Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
Logical fallacy alert! Because Palin has the background as a governer - she will be Bush2!? Does this mean that all governers will lead just like Bush?.
Not the point I was making. I sure wish folks would stop taking my viewpoints and then running them out to the extreme opposite. I was merely pointing out that even though a person may look like they have the experience, they may have absolutely no idea how to BE president. Bush never convinced me, ever, that he knew what he was doing. Palin...just looks out of her league. The fact that she only speaks under controlled circumstances and is being sheltered from the mean media (except boot-lickin' Fox News) scares me. Just what would she do as VP or god-forbid President? "No, I'm sorry Mr. Putin. Ms. Palin won't talk to you unless you follow this script and make NO demands from her to actually answer you."
Now this is really funny! I assume that you are an Obama supporter...? If so, who has Obama surrounded himself with in his political career thusfar and who does he look to for guidance? Those answers are scarry.
I'm actually an independent, if you need to know. I will vote for Obama. I put no value in this Ayers garbage. Why don't we talk about McCain's early support of the Contras? Huh? HUH? Doesn't that speak volumes about how McCain started HIS political career? Look I'm tired of this argument. It goes nowhere, other than distract people away from the real issues.
Let's get some fallacies out of the way.
1) Bush is dumb. This one is easy negate, dumb people do not fly F-102s a very complex and dangerous plane to fly. Dumb people do not attend Yale - but Bush was definately a slacker while there.
You can be intelligent, but lack common sense and have poor judgement. Trust me, I know many PhDs that are brilliant people, but are dumb as rocks outside of the lab. Think of it as Intelligence vs. Wisdom. So Bush can fly a plane? So what? Does that mean he was smart enough to run our country? Is that what you are telling us?
And yes, yes. I know, in a debate such as is going on in this thread, you or someone will automatically reverse this argument. That you want to support Bush indicates that we will never agree on politics. We are just that fundamentally different.
To address your comments on experience.... To me, Palin is a bit too sheltered. She is a deer in the headlights when cornered to state her stance on any issue of any value to the American people. She reads talking points real well. She makes nasty accusations so that McCain can appear to take the high road. But, she is not ready for the White House. Flatly put, she was tapped about 8 years too early. And it is obvious. To state otherwise is just being naiive.
Obama has no experience? Really? You know, I thought so too. I supported Clinton in the primaries, specifically because of experience. So, when Obama ran away with it, I was concerned. Until I read a Time article showing all the past presidents and THEIR levels of experience. The one that changed MY mind? Abraham Lincoln.
Now, I've typed too much, so I'm not going to go any further with this, but check out this piece, or another interesting article here .
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
If you accept that Obama has poor judgement in friends that doesn't mean you accept that he's a bad person. just that he doesn't have the judgement to run the country.
Well, McCain admits he has poor judgement in friends (Keating), so I guess neither one is fit by that yardstick - if you consider Ayers Obama's friend, which is certainly stretching their relationship (even if "happens to live in my neighborhood" is a stretch too). There's no indications of a chummy relationship, just a lot of churning by right-wing press.
|
Like I said, I don't do that. If asked about such statements, I would probably say that those statements "operate within racialized relations of power" not "that person is a racist". People can say stupid things. People may struggle with contradictory ideas. Once you start labelling people and writing them off, you're giving up."Everyone's a little bit racist, OK!
OK?
OK!
But everyone's a little bit racist, todaaay!"Cookie if you can guess the Tony award winning broadway show. ;p
Oh, please. Anyone who doesn't recognise Avenue Q songs deserves no cookies. EVER!*
*=Position may be exaggerated for humour purposes. People who don't know Avenue Q songs may be allowed cookies after 5 years.
|
|
Like I said, I don't do that. If asked about such statements, I would probably say that those statements "operate within racialized relations of power" not "that person is a racist". People can say stupid things. People may struggle with contradictory ideas. Once you start labelling people and writing them off, you're giving up."Everyone's a little bit racist, OK!
OK?
OK!
But everyone's a little bit racist, todaaay!"Cookie if you can guess the Tony award winning broadway show. ;p
Oh, please. Anyone who doesn't recognise Avenue Q songs deserves no cookies. EVER!*
** spoiler omitted **
YOU RECEIVE SUPER-COOKIE!
|
|
YOU RECEIVE SUPER-COOKIE!Like I said, I don't do that. If asked about such statements, I would probably say that those statements "operate within racialized relations of power" not "that person is a racist". People can say stupid things. People may struggle with contradictory ideas. Once you start labelling people and writing them off, you're giving up."Everyone's a little bit racist, OK!
OK?
OK!
But everyone's a little bit racist, todaaay!"Cookie if you can guess the Tony award winning broadway show. ;p
Oh, please. Anyone who doesn't recognise Avenue Q songs deserves no cookies. EVER!*
** spoiler omitted **
Yay! My first Paizo cookie!
To state otherwise is just being naiive.
Or others just disagree with your analysis. But please feel free to believe whatever you wish.
|
People ultimately voted against Gore, clearly the more experienced candidate, because they didn't like the idea of having a president that was "too smart" or "professorial". They voted for the good ol'boy that they identified with, the one they felt they could have a beer with.
I would just point out that alot of people voted for Bill Clinton for the same reason, and with the same qualifications. Many of the people I have heard condemn Bush on these grounds also say that Bill Clinton was one of our best presidents. It is all a matter of perspective.
Clarification: I don't know if you feel that way about Clinton, I am refering to the talking heads on television.
|
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
To state otherwise is just being naiive.Or others just disagree with your analysis. But please feel free to believe whatever you wish.
My apologies. I tried to keep my post clear of anything that could be construed as even vaguely insulting. You are, of course, correct in that others may disagree with my analysis/viewpoint. As is their right.
Let's just say that I fail to understand why people believe Palin to be qualified. If you can watch her interviews and confidently say that she would be a solidly informed, knowledgable president able to lead our nation, and garner the support and respect of the other nations of the world, then....I don't know what else I can say. The rift between us is simply too wide to continue any meaningful discourse. At this point, this thread is devolving into:
Uh huh!
Nuh uh!
Uh huh!
Nuh uh!
Uh huh!
Nuh uh!
Jerk.
Idiot.
#@$%@#
Thread locked.
|
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
I would just point out that alot of people voted for Bill Clinton for the same reason, and with the same qualifications. Many of the people I have heard condemn Bush on these grounds also say that Bill Clinton was one of our best presidents. It is all a matter of perspective.Clarification: I don't know if you feel that way about Clinton, I am refering to the talking heads on television.
Good point. Honestly.
I did vote for Clinton. Before that, I voted for Bush Sr. because, well, it was my first election, and my folks were Republican. Plus, I really liked Reagan. The 80's rocked! So, I voted for the man who was part of that. What I got was a president who, I felt, was more concerned with playing diplomat, and visiting other nations, whilst his own country was in trouble. So, I voted for Clinton because he was a president that was concerned with OUR country.
Plus, I am an ecologist. The environment is VERY high on my list of concerns. It became clear to me in grad school that a Republican candidate simply will not have the best interests on the environment in mind, as was stated above: "Economy vs. Environment"
That's where I'm coming from....
To state otherwise is just being naiive.Or others just disagree with your analysis. But please feel free to believe whatever you wish.My apologies. I tried to keep my post clear of anything that could be construed as even vaguely insulting. You are, of course, correct in that others may disagree with my analysis/viewpoint. As is their right.
Let's just say that I fail to understand why people believe Palin to be qualified. If you can watch her interviews and confidently say that she would be a solidly informed, knowledgable president able to lead our nation, and garner the support and respect of the other nations of the world, then....I don't know what else I can say. The rift between us is simply too wide to continue any meaningful discourse. At this point, this thread is devolving into:
Uh huh!
Nuh uh!
Uh huh!
Nuh uh!
Uh huh!
Nuh uh!
Jerk.
Idiot.
#@$%@#
Thread locked.
Palin is more than qualified to be VP. She has been a successful mayor, governor and business owner. Seriously, what has Obama done that has been that impressive?
Palin is more than qualified to be VP. She has been a successful mayor, governor and business owner. Seriously, what has Obama done that has been that impressive?Let's just say that I fail to understand why people believe Palin to be qualified. If you can watch her interviews and confidently say that she would be a solidly informed, knowledgable president able to lead our nation, and garner the support and respect of the other nations of the world, then....I don't know what else I can say. The rift between us is simply too wide to continue any meaningful discourse. At this point, this thread is devolving into:
Uh huh!
Nuh uh!
Uh huh!
Nuh uh!
Uh huh!
Nuh uh!
Jerk.
Idiot.
#@$%@#
Thread locked.
I can see Russia from my house!
|
|
On this episode of Mr. Shiny's Unsolicited Opinion:
Every presidential and vice-presidential candidate is a flawed human being. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.
That said, I don't like any of the candidates this election year. Not even any of the third parties.
There are three United States presidents that I've liked, and I shall state my reasoning:
- George Washington: He turned down the chance to be King.
- Thomas Jefferson: As close to an anarchist president as we'll ever come.
- James K. Polk: The only president to fill all (three) of his campaign promises.
Let's just say that I fail to understand why people believe Palin to be qualified.
Well it is really quite simple:
[quote=]Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:
Additionally, the Constitution disqualifies some people from the Presidency. Under Article One of the United States Constitution, the Senate has the option, upon conviction, of disqualifying impeached individuals from holding other federal offices, including the Presidency. Under the Twenty-Second Amendment, no one can be elected President more than twice. The Twenty-Second Amendment also specifies that anyone who serves more than two years as President or Acting President, of a term for which someone else was elected President, can only be elected President once. Under the Twelfth Amendment a person who is no longer eligible to be President may not be Vice President either.
Additionally she is not from the same state as her running mate.
As to the idea whether she is prepared to be VP, well as the immortal Bill Clinton said about being president, "You can argue that nobody is ready to be president. I certainly learned a lot about the job in the first year." Certainly we can not really expect a higher standard from the VP.
As for the idea if she is smart enough to be president. Well considering how some of our past and present president and vice-presidents have been portrayed, I don't think the bar is exceptionally high. This isn't rocket science here, that's NASA's department and we don't elect those folks.
And the idea that the current president has "run the country in the ground" being posted on a company's website that has broken away from the big gorilla of its industry and has not only survived but thrived in an industry that is purely recreational (one of the first things to fall when the economy goes bad), I find humorous. My family is living in a nice place, stocking away money for the down payment on a house, I could afford several hundred dollars to buy a bunch of Goodman stuff (it was 1/2 price), stuff I didn't "need" but wanted to get while the getting is good. Yeah, things aren't honkey-dory everywhere or for everyone, but this country is hardly "in the ground" just yet. If we are in a depression for the next ten years, then I'll come back and say I was wrong.
Also gas around here is now around $2.60 a gallon. Well if that is bad, I could use some more of that since I have to buy the same amount of gas each week whether it is $4 a gallon or $2 a gallon. Just because things are bad for some does mean they are bad for all. Heck, just look at Obama supporter Warren Buffet's comment,
|
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
Let's just say that I fail to understand why people believe Palin to be qualified.Well it is really quite simple
Gee, thanks for ignoring the entire point by going entirely literal. Under those qualifications, you or I could be Vice-President or President. And I think it is safe to say that neither of us is able enough to be VP or President.
Again, let me reiterate: we profoundly disagree here. We aren't going to agree. I understand that you have strong beliefs that Obama-Biden is a bad ticket, and McCain-Palin is the best. That's your opinion and you have that right.
For me, it's personal. Here's the slap in the face Mr. McCain issued on Wednesday night to me:
That's big government at its best. Now, 95 percent of the people in America will receive more money under my plan because they will receive not only their present benefits, which may be taxed, which will be taxed, but then you add $5,000 onto it, except for those people who have the gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies that have to do with cosmetic surgery and transplants and all of those kinds of things.
Oh, yes, Mr. McCain...my "gold-plated Cadillac insurance policy" was quite the elitist luxury. My youngest had a heart transplant at 12 days old. He would not be alive if our insurance had refused to cover it, simply because the total cost before insurance was more than I'll probably make in a lifetime. I desperately NEED my health insurance for my kids.
Our medical costs are high enough WITH insurance. Under McCain's plan, I would take a major hit. MAJOR. If my employer is TAXED for covering me, then he's going to scale way back on what plan I get. Which means I pay more for health care. I'll pay more for my kids' coverage. That $2500 tax break (it's not $5000, it's $2500 per tax-paying adult, BTW, and I cover my kids not my wife) is not going to help me and my family. It's going to hurt us.
As for going "shopping" for better insurance? There will be no "choices" for us. My son is automatically rejected by health insurance companies because of his transplant. The ONLY way he's covered in under a group plan, which does not deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. I'm locked into whatever my employer chooses. McCain's plan would risk my son's health.
Yes, that makes me his 5% that won't benefit. Yet, under Obama's plan, the biggest change I will see is lower premiums.
Wow
I mean this whole thread.
Just. Wow.
Gee, thanks for ignoring the entire point by going entirely literal. Under those qualifications, you or I could be Vice-President or President. And I think it is safe to say that neither of us is able enough to be VP or President.
Except I went ahead and addressed the "spirit" of the point as well. But I understand if you tuned the rest out.
|
|
Also gas around here is now around $2.60 a gallon. Well if that is bad, I could use some more of that since I have to buy the same amount of gas each week whether it is $4 a gallon or $2 a gallon. Just because things are bad for some does mean they are bad for all. [
Hey Pres, where do you live? around here gas is $3.25 a gallon.
Personally, I still think Palin is dumb as a post. Dinosaurs were definitely not here 4000 years ago. But it would be really cool if they were. 'Cause dinosaurs rock.
Those crazy jews basing their calendar on when "creation" happened.
Also gas around here is now around $2.60 a gallon. Well if that is bad, I could use some more of that since I have to buy the same amount of gas each week whether it is $4 a gallon or $2 a gallon. Just because things are bad for some does mean they are bad for all. [Hey Pres, where do you live? around here gas is $3.25 a gallon.
Kansas.
|
Kansas.Also gas around here is now around $2.60 a gallon. Well if that is bad, I could use some more of that since I have to buy the same amount of gas each week whether it is $4 a gallon or $2 a gallon. Just because things are bad for some does mean they are bad for all. [Hey Pres, where do you live? around here gas is $3.25 a gallon.
Eastern Ohio here and I paid 2.75 a gallon two days ago.
Personally, I still think Palin is dumb as a post. Dinosaurs were definitely not here 4000 years ago. But it would be really cool if they were. 'Cause dinosaurs rock.
MASIAKASAURUS KNOPFLERI FTW!!!!
BRING MORE COOKIES!!!!!!
Palin never said that dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. Please, don't put misinformation out like that.
|
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
Gee, thanks for ignoring the entire point by going entirely literal. Under those qualifications, you or I could be Vice-President or President. And I think it is safe to say that neither of us is able enough to be VP or President.Except I went ahead and addressed the "spirit" of the point as well. But I understand if you tuned the rest out.
OK. This is starting to take a personal edge. I have no desire to ratchet this up to a flame war...with anyone. So:
You vote McCain-Palin. I'll vote Obama-Biden. On Nov. 4th, one of us will be unhappy, and will hope the next 4 years go by quickly.
Found the edit - for some reason my browser is not showing it very well - only the top half of the text.
Oh, and sorry postmonster, as I had said, I should have cleaned up some of cut paste 'n haste.
Gee, thanks for ignoring the entire point by going entirely literal. Under those qualifications, you or I could be Vice-President or President. And I think it is safe to say that neither of us is able enough to be VP or President.Except I went ahead and addressed the "spirit" of the point as well. But I understand if you tuned the rest out.OK. This is starting to take a personal edge. I have no desire to ratchet this up to a flame war...with anyone. So:
You vote McCain-Palin. I'll vote Obama-Biden. On Nov. 4th, one of us will be unhappy, and will hope the next 4 years go by quickly.
Hey, I'm cool with that. Your post just made it seem like all I did was state the literal requirements, I talked about more than that. I just dislike being incorrectly portrayed is all.
Liberal (Progressive) has now picked up the same negative conotation do to the people it is applied to. I associate modern liberals with the following:
As a 'liberal', 'progressive', and 'leftist' (since those terms are throughly muddled and what exactly each means depends on who you're talking to, I thought I would respond to this.
-Bigger government is better for the nation.
'Big government' is not good in-and-of itself. However, if you believe that the government's job is to help people, that's easier to do with a bigger apparatus.
-Environment is more important than economy.
No. However, liberals don't agree on economy at the expense of the environment. Seeing as we all live here, destroying the environment is a long-term cost.
-People should have more amoral free speech but less political free speech.
Okay, I don't know WHERE you get that. Since when do liberals think people can't express political opinions?
-Economic fairness is achieved via forced government redistribution of wealth.
No. That's Marxism or a communist revolution. On the other hand, I think that the government should help counteract the fact that capitalism serves to continue to concentrate wealth.
-The constitution is a "living, breathing document" thus open to change (Judicial legislation from the bench).
The amendment process is how the Constitution changes. 'Judicial legislation' is a myth, because it doesn't work that way and never has. On the other hand, I believe it IS possible for two people to come to different conclusions from the same text and therefore disagree on the meaning of the Constitution.
-Society is to blame, not the criminal thus punishments should be lessoned and/or done away with. Stronger focus on rehibilitatiion vs. penalties.
People are responsible for their own actions. On the other hand, some things make crime more likely. BOTH should be addressed.
As far as rehabilitation vs. punishment: Criminals should be punished. Afterward, they should be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation in theory can produce useful citizens. The system as it stands now produces a population with more difficulty gaining employment and integrating with normal society, making them more likely to end up in jail again.-Gun control is good, right to bare arms, bad.
Actually, this one is accurate. I agree completely.
-Employees are good, employers are bad.
Employers have an economic incentive to exploit their workers. That is why we have things like minimum wage laws.
-Quotas and affirmative action are the best way to ensure fair hiring even if more qualified people are overlooked based on their color/race/sex.
Affirmative action is like forced integration of schools. Forcing people to interact with each other frequently helps overcome prejudice. It is probably time for it to go, though, but I'd need more data.
-The government needs to help individuals by taking more responsibility and protecting them from the consequeses of bad decisions; while conservatives believe the individual should be responsible for themselves.
Individuals are responsible for themselves. No one has said otherwise. What liberals frequently want to prevent, though, is keeping people from wrecking their lives so thoughly there can be no recovery.
-Liberals fail to see evil in the rest of the world, but often find evil here. They are hypercritical of the U.S.
Or, maybe, they see evil more clearly in America because they are more familiar with it, and talk about it because it is something they actually have the power to fix?
A conservative would take the above statements and flip them around. I lothe most things "liberal" and view it as dangerous meme that has been proven to weaken nations where the majority adopts such views. Other than environmental issues (I tend more left than right on those), the liberal point of view will only help reduce our freedoms and increase dependancy on the government.
You do realize that most other developed countries are socialist, right? Care to explain to me how the European Union is weak?
|
|
It's still around $3.50 in Utah. Used to be $4.00 just a couple weeks ago. But I don't really care, because I ride a bike.
Down here in Cedar City it is between $3.24 and $3.32 depending on where you go. Of course on the 7th I will be heading up to Midway for a high school Finicial Lit conference, so I'm hoping that the prices go down some more up your way.
|
|
It's still around $3.50 in Utah. Used to be $4.00 just a couple weeks ago. But I don't really care, because I ride a bike.Down here in Cedar City it is between $3.24 and $3.32 depending on where you go. Of course on the 7th I will be heading up to Midway for a high school Finicial Lit conference, so I'm hoping that the prices go down some more up your way.
I wouldn't count on it, but I honestly don't know very well. Like I said, I just ride my bike around SLC, so I don't deal with gas. ;p I could check next time I'm out near a gas station, though.
|
|
"Sex, Drugs and Rock'n'Roll"?There are three United States presidents that I've liked, and I shall state my reasoning:...
....James K. Polk: The only president to fill all (three) of his campaign promises.
Yeah, I wish... He fulfilled the following:
1. Acquire Oregon Territory.
2. Reduce tariffs.
3. Purchase California from Mexico
|
|
Just three more weeks. Saying liberal views make a country weak is a matter of opinion not fact. As a matter of personal opinion, I think Sarah Palin is the scariest politician running on a presidential/vice presidential ticket I have witnessed in my lifetime. I find it vastly amusing that she has been kept away from talking in the mainstream press except for inflammatory sound bites about Obama for awhile now. The best thing to come out of Palin's presence in this election is the SNL skits, which have been extremely funny.
I will be voting Obama. I just hope that democrats heed Obama's warning to not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Should Obama lose, then my next best hope is that the Democrats win enough seats back in the congress to make it such that they control both the Senate and the House. Then it will be a lot harder for the far right to author the collapse of our entire civilization in the near future.
I will be happy to see Nov. 5th finally come. I am experiencing voter burnout. We've been discussing this since the mid-term 2006 elections? Feh.
|
|
Wrote about his son's health coverage
Wow, Timitius. I'm really glad you are informed about the health insurance plans of the candidates. I can understand why and I am very sorry about your son's health problems. I pray he has good health now and has a strong heart. My sister has a pre-existing genetic condition, Crohn's disease, and she has had SO much trouble finding any kind of health insurance. If you have any kind of genetic or pre-existing condition, it is next to impossible to buy coverage except through your employer. Our nation is in real trouble when we take away the means to provide for our health. My sister is voting for Obama, and I am too.
|
|
...
If anything, my perception of the Democratic side is that they have a reputation, one that Tom DeLay used to mock, for not playing well with each other and for organizing into 'circular firing squads' and 'turning on their own' whenever something went wrong.Events such as the DNC turning on fellow Democrat Joe Leiberman and attempting to run a contender against him in his own state, prompting him to declare himself as an Independent, run as such and win his own seat in the face of the opposition of his own (ex) party seem to bear out this perception. Being 'liberal,' concerned with freedom of expression, the party attracts all sorts, and they fight like children and, by far more coordinated and 'on-message' Republican standards, often seem incompetent and headed in a dozen different directions like headless chickens.
...
That's the gist of the story, but it's not accurate in some important details. Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont (by about 10,000 votes, or 4%), who therefore became the (only) Democratic candidate for the Connecticut Senate seat. Joe then founded his own party, Connecticut for Lieberman, and won the seat in the general election by about 110,000 votes, taking a plurality, but not a majority, of the votes cast (JL got about 49.7%, NL 39.7%, and the Republican 9.6%). The national DNC did not take sides in the primary, as who the nominee should be is properly left to each state's party members. In other words, a neutral stance in primaries is standard operating procedure (like Dean during this year's neverending Dem presedential primary). Much to the disappointment of some of the liberal Dems who backed Lamont, after Joe decided to run anyway, the DNC did not threaten Joe with any punishment, such as loss of seniority on his committee assignmets. This was a careful political calculation driven by the need to get 51 senators to choose a Dem senate leader, and thus get to set the agenda. Had they kicked out Lieberman, and had he won anyway, he would be caucesing with the GOP, leaving the Senate 50-50, and thus it would be in GOP control, since Cheney casts tiebreakers. The disatisfied liberal dems contend that a threat of sanctions and greater party support on advertising in the general might have helped Lamont win the seat. Depending on whether the senate goes to under 45 GOP, exactly 40 GOP, or under 40 GOP, the Dems may or may not drum Joe out of the caucus come Jan 3, 2009 because of the filibuster.
Primary challenges happen in both parties all the time, and in lopsided places, they may be were the real action is. For instance, most of the action in Kansas state races happens in the GOP primary. If their primary picks someone too conservative, the Dems have a chance to build a coalition with the moderate wing of the GOP. It is just this dynamic that explains why Kathleen Sibelius is the governor. Similarly, the reason why the Alaska senate seat this cycle may go Dem, is because the incumbent, who is on trial for taking several hundred thousand dollars of bribes, won the GOP primary over Palin's Lt. Gov. In my own state of Maryland, Donna Edwards recently beat out Al Wynn, a more centrist/corporate Democrat. This cycle, Wayne Gilchrist, a moderate Republican, lost his primary to a challenger on his right, and has endorsed the Democrat. The other Republican in the Maryland House delegation also faced a primary challenge, but won. Also, last cycle one of our senators retired, and the real action was whether Ben Cardin or Kweisi Mfume would be the democratic shoe-in.
As for Tom Delay's characterization, I think he was talking about party unity among the Dem representatives and senators. He was largely accurate in these comments, as the conservative Dem faction, the Blue Dogs, generally stick together and thus need to be accomodated by the rest of the party. For instance, the several wings of the Dem party failed to present a united front on offshore oil drilling, largely because of internal disagreements on how to pay for tax credits for wind turbines and solar power plants. As a result, a compromise that would have opened up some drilling while allowing states to prevent other drilling failed. For the inside baseball details, you can read a good breakdown at Joe Romm's Climate Progress.
Yeah, where's Sam Weiss when you need him...I mean this whole thread.
Just. Wow.
Word.
Word.Yeah, where's Sam Weiss when you need him...I mean this whole thread.
Just. Wow.
Yeah, he makes a thread much more interesting. I'm glad he's on my side of the political spectrum because I'd hate to try to debate against him.
|
|
...and will hope the next 4 years go by quickly.
this is me either way. i think they both (obama, mccain) are just awful...
(fyi, i was glad to live through both clinton and reagan, both were quite good, imo. i don't see either of these two being much better than bush, frankly, so obviously i don't think much of either one...)
Yeah, he makes a thread much more interesting. I'm glad he's on my side of the political spectrum because I'd hate to try to debate against him.Word.Yeah, where's Sam Weiss when you need him...I mean this whole thread.
Just. Wow.
He debates? Your side of the political spectrum?
|
|
He debates? Your side of the political spectrum?Yeah, he makes a thread much more interesting. I'm glad he's on my side of the political spectrum because I'd hate to try to debate against him.Word.Yeah, where's Sam Weiss when you need him...I mean this whole thread.
Just. Wow.
The fact that the political spectrum operates on more than one axis nonwithstanding, I'm amazed that Mr. Weiss actually falls on it at all.
...and will hope the next 4 years go by quickly.this is me either way. i think they both (obama, mccain) are just awful...
(fyi, i was glad to live through both clinton and reagan, both were quite good, imo. i don't see either of these two being much better than bush, frankly, so obviously i don't think much of either one...)
QFT talk about a Catch-22 this year. I can't even vote Libertarian because their pick is revolting. Sigh ..such a year ..
Let me explain because I'm not coming back.
1) If belittling people and irrationally denying facts that weaken your stance is debate then Sam is fantastic.
2) IMHO, the neocons have tied the "spectrum" into knots and tossed it out the window. Furthermore, fundamentalist Christians have added another axis.
The fact that the political spectrum operates on more than one axis nonwithstanding, I'm amazed that Mr. Weiss actually falls on it at all.
Beaten!