-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
I don't believe that many of us on these forums have the scope to condemn or champion Free Trade in the way that we might like to.
Well the thing there Tuff is some people here really do like to champion free trade , and its easy to comdemn their view point because it contradicts their stance on other issues of freedom of trade , the main being the removal of restrictions on freedom of movement for labour which is an essential element of the equation as workers are just another commodity .
So while they are happy griping about tax and tarifs and restrictive labour laws they are not happy if the entire population of mexico comes across the river and takes their job away for a dollar a day .
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CountArach
Just as someone who isn't entirely familiar with McCain's record... what executive experience does McCain have? A quick google doesn't come up with any.
I think that you can view his Military career as a type of executive experience that should never be discounted. He was involved for a long period of time and held commanding positions for a large part - he was a squadron commander and ran training at an airbase. Couple this with his staggeringly long and successful career in The U.S. Congress and it is a resume that Obama can't touch.
His record for getting things done is much more prolific and he has the "pull the trigger in a clutch mentality". McCain knows consequence well and calls decent shots even when times get tough.
I hope that he picks someone with good economic credentials, but neither he nor Obama are no Econ-Oracles.
There are quite a few used car salesman pushing the shiny Obama model - but they don't have any upkeep records. Take their word for it!
Who knows what will happen or what is best?
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
m52nickerson
It may seem pointless but, I am technically correct.
Actually nope - you attempted to make a direct link between the two that is not there.
Good - you actually can do some of your own google research, and proved my statement incorrect. Now how did the Department of Homeland Security get started? Its wasn't the brianchild of congress. There was a process the President had to follow in order to get the department implemented, was it some majically process where he went to congress to ask for laws and regulations, or did he present some requests that explained what he invisioned the department to be and how to organize it?
Quote:
Now how would one have an appropriation hearing before the initial legislation is passed? Or better yet what details of that appropriation would you like at this stage of the game, other then how much it will cost. The implementation of most plans is complicated, but will be along the same lines in most cases. Even without that level of detail it is still unfair to say that the candidates' plans lack substance.
Unfortunetly for you it is not unfair. Your attempting to say that a candidate can convince me only by concepts of what he wants - sorry not so naive as that. As stated before if the candidate is going to have something more then a concept - if its a plan it has to have details in it, information about costs, how its going to be organized, time line for implenation, and a whole host of other details solely missing in his "Plan."
Quote:
Yes, they may have been pre-screened by the moderator, but were not known to the candidates, and they were asked by the people posing them.
And what was my point? Yep that they were pre-screened.
Quote:
English - your doing it wrong! I'm sure that is what you meant right from the start.
No I meant Mote from the very beginning there - my english is fine. Sometime you might figure out exactly why I used the term in the first place.
Quote:
The political party process is broken, that does not sound pessimistic at all. It is not broken. If anything is broken it is the voters. The statement you make "Yep-which is why politicians are full of crap" shows it. I have been hearing that for years. "I have to choose the lesser of two evils" is another one. We should be holding the election up and saying this is what it is all about. We have two good candidates. One, younger with a lot of fire. The other a tested veteran who does not take any crap. Both willing to do what they feel is not the best interests of this country and its people. No, that is not the way it goes. Instead voters pick candidates in the primaries based on little more then what prom queens are chosen, then when that person loses they cannot support the winner of that primary even when their positions are nearly the same. No, they are sore losers that now make statement such as "he has no plan", "he is not proven", "he is not honest", "he is to old", "he is to young".......and on and on, all because they refuse to look at the issues, because the might find they agree with someone they do not like. If a candidate puts more detail in a plan and then must change that, we call them a lier, a flip-flopper, indecisive. If politicians look two faces, or shady, it is because that is the way we paint then. No, not all politicians have our best interests in mind, that has been proven, but it is not the majority. Yes, I support Obama, and I do defend him. Not because I see him a savior. It is because I agree with is policies. He stands very near were I do on a great number of issues. That does not mean I vilify McCain, I disagree with his policies, but believe he has the best interests of the country at heart. If anything is broken it is us.
So you argee then the political party process is indeed broken when we ourselves are the political parties? Like I said the political parties are broken. Voters primarily belong to one of two major parties.
But then again you seemly assume that I am attempting to vilify Obama - dont see any attempt to vilify Obama anywhere in my writting - only made the statement that he is just another typical politician.
Quote:
That is correct it is only an opinion, a baseless one at that.
LOL - baseless nope, seems your have difficultly again.
Quote:
Who is speaking in absolutes now? Now we are at the heart of the issue It is this outlook way you feel that the candidates do not have substance in there plans, not because the don't, because you don't believe them. A politician could hand you the answers you want on a silver platter and you would not believe it. If they give you the detail you want, you will move on the question, as you put it, something else. In your eyes they are not good enough, in your eyes there is
no true Scotsman!
Wrong arguement to present - if the candidate had substance in the plan I would be able to follow exactly what he is saying - unfortunately neither candidate has much substance in their political concepts that they are presenting to the american people.
Quote:
A news writer is a professional analysis? Do you think I'm going to feed you ammo against my own argument? If you are not going to put in the work, get out of the argument.
Again pot calling the kettle black - as stated several times - most professional analysis agree that the farm bill contains pork. So what if I use a news writer's article as a link, it neither proves nor disproves my point - you haven't been able to dispute that the bill contains pork. And you darn well know you can't. And again when discussing politics its primarily about opinion. Therefore to say I am wrong requires a little bit of legwork besides saying that I am wrong.
Quote:
Then prove me wrong.
Alreadly done
Quote:
One could say that the existence of God is common knowledge, but it cannot be proven. At one time it was common knowledge the world was flat.
Yep you can't prove god exists but neither can you disprove his existance.
Quote:
Oh, please help I've fallen into a trap!
Like I said be careful of what you call people.
Quote:
Lets look at your trap. You stated "got the letter from the Representive to prove it. (Speaking of the relief funding to Kansas farmers as Pork) The relief fund was done to insure farmers in kansas voted for the individuals in congress from their state.", but in the letter from Nancy Boyda she states "$40 million in tornado relief for Greensburg , Kansas . The Kansas delegation has been pushing for these funds to be included in the next appropriations bill since the F5 tornado devastated 95% of Greensburg , Kansas.". She does not call it pork, or state that is was done for political gains. I would say that what the Kansas delegation did was their jobs. They were voted into office to represent and help the people of that state and some of those people needed help. If they do a good job they keep theirs. If you see that as pork then any time a politician gets any type of legislation or funding that helps the community that they represent it would be pork. So yes is was a trap, a trap full of a massive amount of fail.
Nope it shows your attempt at calling people a liar is misplaced. Now I didn't claim that the representive would say its pork now did I? you read into the statement what you wanted to read into it. Are you having reading comprehension problems again? ( I told you once before about how you present your arguement, and I dont have a problem going tit for tat with you with the personal slams.)
And as stated before both items should of been presented in an emergency relief bill just like its suppose to happen. Especially given that greensburg was a declared national emergency. Anything that does not follow the proper process for its own funding is wrong be it a rider or pork. Then there were the other measures in the bill that she didnt mention because it didnt support her position in her response. But then all I asked her was to do her duty in regards to the Constitution and the War Power's Act of 1973. To bad she didn't, she voted for political expidency (SP?)
Quote:
It mentions spending and funds for programs that outside of those areas people may not care about, it also mentions spending that the author feels is unneeded and unwise, but is fails to show anything that is pork, unless you go with you inane definition.
Not at all - as stated before the bill contains pork - some of it might be just riders that are unneeded and unwise, but some of it is indeed pork, done for political gain to garner votes from the farming community throughout the nation.
Quote:
True, but we can show they are not backed up by fact.
So far you have not done a very good job of that - you have primarily countered with your own opinion.
Quote:
Again the reason you "think" they are not plans stems from your beliefs that all politicians are full of the stinky stuff. You so want to show that they have provided nothing so you can justify your vote for an imaginary mouse.
Actually I have a good understanding of what constitutes a plan and what constitutes a concept, having written many a military operations plan. What both candidates have posted on their websights is concepts, things that the candidate can provide to his staff a basis for developing a plan to accomplish the task that the candidate wants to accomplish, but plans they are not.
Quote:
Yet it was the Republican party famous for labeling anyone who disagreed with them as unpatriotic. Yes you questioned Obama's agenda. I questioned yours.
Good thing I have no agenda, something you fail to realize. All I have is questions of the candidates. You chose to make it personal because someone dare question your favorite candidate, frankly I am not surprised but it rather amuses me to have such discussion. . However has stated before I have not made a decision about either candidate.
Quote:
I'm glad you think so.
Yep very amused - your completely full of yourself without much ability to see when someone is messing with you completely.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TuffStuffMcGruff
This week we have seen a substantial dip in his polling results.
....and if they stay like that I would then agree with you.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tribesman
Well the thing there Tuff is some people here really do like to champion free trade , and its easy to comdemn their view point because it contradicts their stance on other issues of freedom of trade , the main being the removal of restrictions on freedom of movement for labour which is an essential element of the equation as workers are just another commodity .
So while they are happy griping about tax and tarifs and restrictive labour laws they are not happy if the entire population of mexico comes across the river and takes their job away for a dollar a day .
Goods and ideas can be traded freely without mandatory mass-migration. Why do they get upset when diseases like malaria come across our borders? Hypocrites.
We want what is best - free trade is a tool to get that. When it doesn't get us what is best, it falls into question.
"Free Speech" is a similar concept. We say "Free Speech" but many of us don't mean that. I can't sing a Brittany Spears song in public for pay legally. I can't scream "fire" in crowded theater legally. I can't threaten people's lives legally. Would you call people who support those limits to free-speech hypocrites? Probably, but I wouldn't - it is a man-made concept, therefore I don't expect it to be 100% useful or accurate.
What should we call "Free-Trade" to avoid being called hypocrites? 80% Free Trade with a 20% regulation variable?
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
m52nickerson
....and if they stay like that I would then agree with you.
This election is Obama's to lose. I learned from the democratic primaries that prolonged flat or negative trends were especially bad for Obama's results. If we saw his numbers decline slightly before the election he was likely to lose even if his pre-polls were still leading the opposition, sometimes by 5 to 10 points. This was in the Democratic primary - how will those trends play out in a general election? I don't know.
He has been doing a remarkable job, but people might be bored with him by election time. You never know with massive groups of people.
I don't know who would be better as President to be honest, but I will vote for McCain because he is a known entity and I trust his independence. I also don't want to see a Democratic Legislature, Executive (and, by extension, Judiciary). I think die hard democrats can see why a one party State led by a charismatic, but inexperienced demagogue might be a bad idea.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
I think Demagogue might be a bit harsh...
Quote:
I think that you can view his Military career as a type of executive experience that should never be discounted. He was involved for a long period of time and held commanding positions for a large part - he was a squadron commander and ran training at an airbase. Couple this with his staggeringly long and successful career in The U.S. Congress and it is a resume that Obama can't touch.
Military careers don't count as Executive experience in my eyes. It counts as military experience, which I won't deny he has.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CountArach
Military careers don't count as Executive experience in my eyes. It counts as military experience, which I won't deny he has.
In my opinion Rabbits don't count as lagomorphs. Please explain why you wouldn't consider military command executive experience and I'll explain my opinion on rabbits.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TuffStuffMcGruff
In my opinion Rabbits arn't lagomorphs. Please explain why you wouldn't consider military command executive experience and I'll explain my opinion on rabbits.
Alright. Wiki makes my point for me:
Quote:
Executive Experience is defined as experience where one is the top (or 2nd top) decision maker for the company, State, large military unit, etc. (See for example, Army General, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Vice President of the United States, prior President of the United States, and Chief Executive Officer.)
Large military units are anything like a General. Now, explain your opinion on Rabbits.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Military careers don't count as Executive experience in my eyes. It counts as military experience, which I won't deny he has.
I have always wondered why military experience is considered such a value, unless one was a top rank general i don't see it changing much in terms of being the head of the army, theres the main one about seeing the horrors of war but ex-military politicians seem to be pretty much in line with non-ex-military politicians when it comes to going to war or not (infact i think of them as a bit more up for it, this may be imagined though)
I don't know who would be better as President to be honest, but I will vote for McCain because he is a known entity and I trust his independence. I also don't want to see a Democratic Legislature, Executive (and, by extension, Judiciary). I think die hard democrats can see why a one party State led by a charismatic, but inexperienced demagogue might be a bad idea.
Is this the main reason for support of Mccain over Obama, i don't doubt you but i always thought of you as fairly conservative, whilst obama may not quite be 'most liberal eva!' he does seem more liberal than Mccain, or is this somewhat to do with Mccains questions conservative convictions ?
I have always thought that power being split across the houses between the partys was a better idea, unfortunatly even people who think this is a good idea will not vote against thier views... i remember having the conversation here back in 04 Bush Kerry (those were they days eh? bushisms and swiftboating...)with someone who said they disliked one party holding all the power, but they were still planning to vote bush because it was too important not too, i can symapthise with that, if the bush kerry situation was reversed despite my dislike for concentrated power i could not bring myself to vote for bush
and there you have it, Mccain just got mentioned twice as much as the other guy, its a first...
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CountArach
If you are referring to Government - I agree that he has had no real "executive" experience. If you consider a more colloquial definition of executive, it is apparent that he has had more of it than Obama by a long shot. Quite a few company's have a number of people called "executives" - senior managers.
Very few Senators have had the kind of Executive experience that we would like them to have, but when given an alternative between a Senator with a Green thumb or a Senator who has been in the business for many years and has commanded men through life or death decisions in wartime and out successfully, the decision becomes a bit easier.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TuffStuffMcGruff
IVery few Senators have had the kind of Executive experience that we would like them to have, but when given an alternative between a Senator with a Green thumb or a Senator who has been in the business for many years and has commanded men through life or death decisions in wartime and out successfully, the decision becomes a bit easier.
That is why so few have ever been elected.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LittleGrizzly
Is this the main reason for support of Mccain over Obama, i don't doubt you but i always thought of you as fairly conservative, whilst obama may not quite be 'most liberal eva!' he does seem more liberal than Mccain, or is this somewhat to do with Mccains questions conservative convictions ?
It has to do with being upset with Republicans in a tough economic year. I see good things happening. Reform Repubs are getting more popular. Guys (and gals) like; Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Tom Coburn, Chuck Hagel, Eric Cantor, Ron Paul and Paul Ryan are getting more popular. I'd love to see the aforementioned types in a McCain cabinet rather than the creeps Obama would appoint. At the same time "MainStreet" pork spenders like Stevens and Craig are getting hit hard and leaving office.
Anti-reform Republicans are part of that problem and should be dealt with like the problems in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CountArach
That is why so few have ever been elected.
7 out of 44 (I'm including either Obama or McCain). That is not too many at all.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
You still owe me an explanation of why Rabbits aren't lagomorphs :wink:
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CountArach
You still owe me an explanation of why Rabbits aren't lagomorphs :wink:
They clearly are. I was trying to make a stronger analogous point than my argument.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TuffStuffMcGruff
They clearly are. I was trying to make a stronger analogous point than my argument.
I know, hence the :wink:
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
We want what is best - free trade is a tool to get that. When it doesn't get us what is best, it falls into question.
What you want is free trade as long as it is of maximum benefit to yourselves , that is called protectionism which is pretty contradictory to the idea of free trade .
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tribesman
What you want is free trade as long as it is of maximum benefit to yourselves , that is called protectionism which is pretty contradictory to the idea of free trade .
I meant "we" as in "all of us". If I was talking about the U.S. only - that would be protectionism. I view "Free-Trade" as a very effective tool to help everybody in the world do a bit better. When it ceases to help "everybody" and begins to target the U.S. and benefit totalitarian cheaters - the tool is not functioning properly. Some would argue that we should continue to use the tool as usual and that the problem is just a blip. I wouldn't agree. I also wouldn't support Free-Trade if it was detrimental to the U.S. and to the benefit of everybody else. I don't support heartless mercantilism either. There needs to be a good balance.
Analogy: If I was using a power drill to build a wooden house for my family and it started hissing and spewing sparks - I would modify, repair or replace the drill. Why would I risk losing the house? Which is more important - the drill or the house? I say the tool should benefit the house.
U.S. centered free-trade as a tool for the betterment of everybody is my objective. If either of those variables change, so does my support for the whole deal.
-
Re : Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemur
It seems that on the
McCain blog, the Obama blog, and the Org thread, it's all Obama all the time. You'll pardon me if I find this perplexing.
That's odd. I would've sworn the number one word on Obama.com is 'donate'. Anywhere I click leads to a page asking for my credit card.
It's a funny election though. It's a referendum on Obama more than anything else.
I do hope the One wins. For a number of reasons:
- to punish the Republicans. The GOP descended into depths of sinister cynicism and depravity that deserves an unlimited spanking.
- Obama as president will be cool. There's no way around it.
- I do not want to run the risk of eternal damnation if he really is the Second Coming...
-
Re: Re : Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Louis VI the Fat
That's odd. I would've sworn the number one word on Obama.com is 'donate'. Anywhere I click leads to a page asking for my credit card.
It's a funny election though. It's a referendum on Obama more than anything else.
I do hope the One wins. For a number of reasons:
- to punish the Republicans. The GOP descended into depths of sinister cynicism and depravity that deserves an unlimited spanking.
Doesn't a Dem majority in both houses an McCain as the party leader already do that? That is a fitting punishment in my book.
-
Re: Re : Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Doesn't a Dem majority in both houses an McCain as the party leader already do that? That is a fitting punishment in my book.
a fitting punishment would be electoral obscurity preferably vanishing altogether, obviously replaced though....
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Actually nope - you attempted to make a direct link between the two that is not there.
It is there, do you need new glasses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Good - you actually can do some of your own google research, and proved my statement incorrect. Now how did the Department of Homeland Security get started? Its wasn't the brianchild of congress. There was a process the President had to follow in order to get the department implemented, was it some majically process where he went to congress to ask for laws and regulations, or did he present some requests that explained what he invisioned the department to be and how to organize it?
:laugh4:What an uninspired way to try and deflect the fact you were proven wrong. Yes, you were really trying to teach me something. Not quit you were trying to make a point and it failed. I'm sure you will come back with, no I was teaching you to do research. Weak, very weak. Yes I'm sure the president and his staff went to congress with a very detailed plan, but it still ultimately when through and became a law. No if you feel that the plans presented to the voters need to be as detailed as this then all I can say is :laugh4:.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Unfortunetly for you it is not unfair. Your attempting to say that a candidate can convince me only by concepts of what he wants - sorry not so naive as that. As stated before if the candidate is going to have something more then a concept - if its a plan it has to have details in it, information about costs, how its going to be organized, time line for implenation, and a whole host of other details solely missing in his "Plan."
You call it a concept, I call it a plan. Please refer to the :laugh4: above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
And what was my point? Yep that they were pre-screened.
That proves what? Do you think the moderators, being pay by the networks, want to see question thats the candidates can answer easily? No they want to see them stammer and stutter. That is what you see replayed again and again. Plus those pre-screened questions did come from the people. So there is nothing wrong with moderators pre-screening questions, unless you want to know what kind underwear the candidates are wearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
No I meant Mote from the very beginning there - my english is fine. Sometime you might figure out exactly why I used the term in the first place.
:laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
So you argee then the political party process is indeed broken when we ourselves are the political parties? Like I said the political parties are broken. Voters primarily belong to one of two major parties.
No the precess is not broken. It is the voters who take place in that process. Are you sure there are more dems and reps then independents
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
But then again you seemly assume that I am attempting to vilify Obama - dont see any attempt to vilify Obama anywhere in my writting - only made the statement that he is just another typical politician.
No I think you are unfairly questioning because you think politicians are full of crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
LOL - baseless nope, seems your have difficultly again.
Here we go, I will say prove that they are not baseless, you will say I have, I will ask were, you will say look.....and so on. It is equivalent to having a yes, no argument with my two year old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Wrong arguement to present - if the candidate had substance in the plan I would be able to follow exactly what he is saying - unfortunately neither candidate has much substance in their political concepts that they are presenting to the american people.
Funny, I read the plans and can follow along fine, and I thought I was the one being accused of having a problems comprehending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Again pot calling the kettle black - as stated several times - most professional analysis agree that the farm bill contains pork. So what if I use a news writer's article as a link, it neither proves nor disproves my point - you haven't been able to dispute that the bill contains pork. And you darn well know you can't. And again when discussing politics its primarily about opinion. Therefore to say I am wrong requires a little bit of legwork besides saying that I am wrong.
You stated professional analysis then posted a link to a news article, I know how we can fix this, link to on of the professional analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Alreadly done
:laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Yep you can't prove god exists but neither can you disprove his existance.
But I am not claiming his existence. Now what about the flat earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Like I said be careful of what you call people.
I am.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Nope it shows your attempt at calling people a liar is misplaced. Now I didn't claim that the representive would say its pork now did I? you read into the statement what you wanted to read into it. Are you having reading comprehension problems again? ( I told you once before about how you present your arguement, and I dont have a problem going tit for tat with you with the personal slams.)
May be but it served its purpose. No you implemented it by saying it was put in for personal political gains, which it was not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
And as stated before both items should of been presented in an emergency relief bill just like its suppose to happen. Especially given that greensburg was a declared national emergency. Anything that does not follow the proper process for its own funding is wrong be it a rider or pork. Then there were the other measures in the bill that she didnt mention because it didnt support her position in her response. But then all I asked her was to do her duty in regards to the Constitution and the War Power's Act of 1973. To bad she didn't, she voted for political expidency (SP?)
It is a rider, but not pork. The delegates from Kansas were doing their jobs, not for personal gain but to help people. I guess you cannot believe that.
Some times speed saves lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Not at all - as stated before the bill contains pork - some of it might be just riders that are unneeded and unwise, but some of it is indeed pork, done for political gain to garner votes from the farming community throughout the nation.
Helping the farm community would garner votes, but speaking in the interest of the people who put you in office will do the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
So far you have not done a very good job of that - you have primarily countered with your own opinion.
Ask for were that opinion is based. Unlike you I will back things up. Just don't come back with "Ok, do it" Give the the specifics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Actually I have a good understanding of what constitutes a plan and what constitutes a concept, having written many a military operations plan. What both candidates have posted on their websights is concepts, things that the candidate can provide to his staff a basis for developing a plan to accomplish the task that the candidate wants to accomplish, but plans they are not.
A military operations plan and a plans for an entire country just a little bit different, and by little bit I mean huge. Military Op plans have a pretty specific set of guidelines. While political plans do not, and since we have long time before those plans would be put into action adding the level of detail you want is unwarranted. Time lines would change, funding would change, and it would all open the candidates up to being called indecisive, or a flip flopper because they change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Good thing I have no agenda, something you fail to realize. All I have is questions of the candidates. You chose to make it personal because someone dare question your favorite candidate, frankly I am not surprised but it rather amuses me to have such discussion. . However has stated before I have not made a decision about either candidate.
What about Micky?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Yep very amused - your completely full of yourself without much ability to see when someone is messing with you completely.
Hey whatever excuse you use to sleep at night. All I see is someone make claims to back out of an argument. I full of myself, yes that is proven when I referred to you as young man, and claimed that I was teaching you, and..........oh wait!
So if you want to claim you were just trolling, to get out of the argument be my guest. I don't think your heart is in it anymore anyways.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Well so much for Obama not running misleading ads.
Pocket
Very, very disappointing.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Yep, its also sad to hear he has taken money from big oil. Though I would be interested as to what is meant by "Oil company employees".
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
m52nickerson
It is there, do you need new glasses?
Nope I see just fine - The change the majority of People want is not in-line with the change that MoveOn.org wants.
Quote:
:laugh4:What an uninspired way to try and deflect the fact you were proven wrong. Yes, you were really trying to teach me something. Not quit you were trying to make a point and it failed. I'm sure you will come back with, no I was teaching you to do research. Weak, very weak. Yes I'm sure the president and his staff went to congress with a very detailed plan, but it still ultimately when through and became a law. No if you feel that the plans presented to the voters need to be as detailed as
this then all I can say is :laugh4:.
Again you read what you want to read - And again you attempt to place a definition that I did not say, oh well you can claim victory if you think you must - however you have not actually won an arguement since as before there is no details in the Health Care Plan. However one can not claim victory when one hasn't defeated the arguement in the first place.
Quote:
You call it a concept, I call it a plan. .
Is there details in the campaign website? I think nought.
Quote:
That proves what? Do you think the moderators, being pay by the networks, want to see question thats the candidates can answer easily? No they want to see them stammer and stutter. That is what you see replayed again and again. Plus those pre-screened questions did come from the people. So there is nothing wrong with moderators pre-screening questions, unless you want to know what kind underwear the candidates are wearing.
Like I said the questions were pre-screened, so it proves you have an inability to actually read.
Now I expect people to be more intelligent then ask what kind of underwear that candidates are wearing - however it seems you don't want citizens asking questions of candidates in a debate. Whats wrong you scared that your candidate of choice might stumble and fail?
Quote:
No the precess is not broken. It is the voters who take place in that process. Are you sure there are more dems and reps then independents
LOL - voters are part of the political process - you can't claim that they are not either especially given the primary system.
Quote:
No I think you are unfairly questioning because you think politicians are full of crap.
Then that is only your opinion - you have no proof that I am actually being unfair. I have the same cyncism of McCain as I have of Obama - so I am questioning both of them with the same standard. Your opinion here is irrevelant concerning my desire to question and hold politicans accountable. You can only claim unfair if you can prove I hold McCain to a different standard.
Something you are unable to prove.
Quote:
Here we go, I will say prove that they are not baseless, you will say I have, I will ask were, you will say look.....and so on. It is equivalent to having a yes, no argument with my two year old.
Again it looks like I am speaking to a two year old then....
Quote:
Funny, I read the plans and can follow along fine, and I thought I was the one being accused of having a problems comprehending.
Like I said before not enough detail for me to support the candidate's position on the his health care plan - so while you might find it acceptable does not equate to me having the same opinion. So what you have to deal with is that not everyone will agree with you concerning anyone subject on this election. Now you show me where I am missing the timeline, the implenation plan, as in phased or in total, and the cost estimates for the plan, then maybe we can reach a consensus. But wait your just going to try to belittle the opposition, so don't bother if that is all you got.
Quote:
You stated professional analysis then posted a link to a news article, I know how we can fix this, link to on of the professional analysis.
As before - news print is sound enough, you have not refuted the article at all.
Quote:
But I am not claiming his existence. Now what about the flat earth.
My arguement is not about a flat earth. So no need to prove an opinion.
Quote:
May be but it served its purpose. No you implemented it by saying it was put in for personal political gains, which it was not.
Something you can't prove or disprove. Riders and pork are always done for political gain, to include personal gain via placating the voters .
Quote:
It is a rider, but not pork. The delegates from Kansas were doing their jobs, not for personal gain but to help people. I guess you cannot believe that.
If they were doing there jobs they would of funded it in the initial congress that meant when the funding was first tought of being necessary, if they were doing their jobs they would of provided the emergency spending bill for the national emergency. So yep I believe they did it for personal gain, to garner votes, to ease their consience for being to darn lazy to do it right when they should of. Which at best makes it lazy politicans and at worst corrupt politicans using pork to gain votes.
Quote:
Some times speed saves lives.
There is a converse to that statement.
Quote:
Helping the farm community would garner votes, but speaking in the interest of the people who put you in office will do the same thing.
Speaking and providing funding is to different aspects - speaking to gain votes is something I can accept because its the political process. Wasting tax payer dollars to garner votes is unacceptable.
Quote:
Ask for were that opinion is based. Unlike you I will back things up. Just don't come back with "Ok, do it" Give the the specifics.
Why would I do that - I dont have a problem with your opinion your entitled to it, just like I am entitle to mine. In fact you have not demonstrated that any of my opinions are necessarily wrong only different then yours.
Quote:
A military operations plan and a plans for an entire country just a little bit different, and by little bit I mean huge. Military Op plans have a pretty specific set of guidelines. While political plans do not, and since we have long time before those plans would be put into action adding the level of detail you want is unwarranted. Time lines would change, funding would change, and it would all open the candidates up to being called indecisive, or a flip flopper because they change.
And I say its not unwarranted when the candidate is running a campaign to spend additional taxpayer dollars. The details I mentioned are easily planned and adjusted based upon the reality of the situation as it develops. If your defense is that your scared of your candidate being called indecisive or a flip flopper that is a weak arguement.
Reading comprehension problems? What part of leaning toward Mickey Mouse did you not understand... That does not imply a decision has been made.
Quote:
Hey whatever excuse you use to sleep at night. All I see is someone make claims to back out of an argument. I full of myself, yes that is proven when I referred to you as young man, and claimed that I was teaching you, and..........oh wait!
No problems sleeping at all - my consience is clear, no feelings of inadquecy that you seem to have given your nature of wanting to make certain comments directed at the individual versus the actual arguement - like I said before knucklehead tit for tat.
Quote:
So if you want to claim you were just trolling, to get out of the argument be my guest. I don't think your heart is in it anymore anyways.
Give you a clue my heart wasn't ever in it, just my distracted mind.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
m52nickerson
Well so much for Obama not running misleading ads.
Pocket
Very, very disappointing.
Get used to it he is a politican first and foremost.
-
Re : Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
m52nickerson
From the ad:
'Barack Obama… A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand dollar rebate. A president who’ll stand up for you.
Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.'
That sneaky bastard. It's been what, four or five months since Obama lambasted Clinton for her plan to give families a rebate to compensate for high oil prices? :no:
Certainly, there can be no doubts about Obama's experience and ability to lead anymore. Because already, he is the most accomplished lying, sneaky, flip-flopping, opinion-poll driven, untrusthworthy politician in the whole of Washington.
:soapbox: :drama:
-
Re: Re : Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Louis VI the Fat
From the ad:
'Barack Obama… A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand dollar rebate. A president who’ll stand up for you.
Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.'
That sneaky bastard. It's been what, four or five months since Obama lambasted Clinton for her plan to give families a rebate to compensate for high oil prices? :no:
Certainly, there can be no doubts about Obama's experience and ability to lead anymore. Because already, he is the most accomplished lying, sneaky, flip-flopping, opinion-poll driven, untrusthworthy politician in the whole of Washington.
:soapbox: :drama:
Oh Louis don't be to upset with the political rethoric coming out of any politican, m52nickerson though might think your making an attack on his favorite candidate for the office.
Unfortunately for me I want a candidate for President that doesn't meet any of the above listed criteria to actually run for office. Haven't seen one yet actually get past the primary stage for the two main parties.
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
-
Re: U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Nope I see just fine - The change the majority of People want is not in-line with the change that MoveOn.org wants.
Once again both still want change, that simple fact all I was trying to convey.
Quote:
Again you read what you want to read - And again you attempt to place a definition that I did not say, oh well you can claim victory if you think you must - however you have not actually won an arguement since as before there is no details in the Health Care Plan. However one can not claim victory when one hasn't defeated the arguement in the first place.
No, I said that I did not believe your claim you purposely made a mistake. You seem to also forget what this part was about. It was about implantation and you trying to say the it is not through Laws and regulations. Now when I first put that out there the first time you have move from the stance that it is not right to it is more complicated. Yes it is more complicated, but ultimately laws and then regulations are used. Presidential Orders are sometimes used, but they are not the norm.
Quote:
Is there details in the campaign website? I think nought.
Yes there is detail, just not the level of detail you want. It would be different if say Obama's health care plan was "My plan will cover everybody, and will save people who already have health care"
Quote:
Like I said the questions were pre-screened, so it proves you have an inability to actually read.
Now I expect people to be more intelligent then ask what kind of underwear that candidates are wearing - however it seems you don't want citizens asking questions of candidates in a debate. Whats wrong you scared that your candidate of choice might stumble and fail?
Do you understand that the question in those two debates were asked by the citizens. That, and I gave you a very good reason that tough question would not have been excluded. No I do not have that fear. You seem to thing that the people will be asking tougher questions then others. Probable not true. I don't think most people have gone that deep into looking at the candidates to ask detailed questions. While the some of the media is able to get the the heart of the matter. The best was Tim Russert.
Quote:
LOL - voters are part of the political process - you can't claim that they are not either especially given the primary system.
No they take place in that process.
Quote:
Then that is only your opinion - you have no proof that I am actually being unfair. I have the same cyncism of McCain as I have of Obama - so I am questioning both of them with the same standard. Your opinion here is irrevelant concerning my desire to question and hold politicans accountable. You can only claim unfair if you can prove I hold McCain to a different standard.
Something you are unable to prove.
Again it looks like I am speaking to a two year old then....
Did I say you were being unfair to just Obama? No, I stated that you expect an unfair amount of detail from the candidates. Yes that is my opinion. Here is the thing, what you want, you will not get. The candidates are not going to go into that level of detail, because it is unneeded for the majority of voters to decide. See you and I may not care about candidates being called flip-flopper, because we can see through that, and understand that they must change with information they are given. No one whats a robot for a president.
You are telling me even thou the candidates plans are in some instances completely opposite, the details are going to sway you one way or another. You would not go with the plan that is closer to your own stance on the issues?
Quote:
Like I said before not enough detail for me to support the candidate's position on the his health care plan - so while you might find it acceptable does not equate to me having the same opinion. So what you have to deal with is that not everyone will agree with you concerning anyone subject on this election. Now you show me where I am missing the timeline, the implenation plan, as in phased or in total, and the cost estimates for the plan, then maybe we can reach a consensus. But wait your just going to try to belittle the opposition, so don't bother if that is all you got.
The details you are asking for will all depend on the situation if he get into office. The time line would be impacted by how much of a fight he has on the implementation. Total or phased would be depended on the budget. All these will be affected by the economy and current event at that time. This is why that level of detail would be very hard to put out now.
Yes, I realize that not everyone will share my views. That does not mean I will not point out when feel that someones views are incorrect. So far you have explained what level of detail you want, but not why you feel it is needed.
Quote:
As before - news print is sound enough, you have not refuted the article at all.
I did, I stated that within the article it talked about spending the author felt was unneeded, and programs that were only for certain areas. It failed to prove these were pork.
Quote:
My arguement is not about a flat earth. So no need to prove an opinion.
No, but it does go back to your defense that it is common knowledge that the farm bill is full of pork. This example shows how common knowledge is not always correct.
Quote:
Something you can't prove or disprove. Riders and pork are always done for political gain, to include personal gain via placating the voters.
Riders are normally done when that specific line item would not stand on it's own. Pork my be considered a rider that is done for personal political gain. You were making the claim that the farm relief is pork, again the person making the claim has the burden of proof.
Quote:
If they were doing there jobs they would of funded it in the initial congress that meant when the funding was first tought of being necessary, if they were doing their jobs they would of provided the emergency spending bill for the national emergency. So yep I believe they did it for personal gain, to garner votes, to ease their consience for being to darn lazy to do it right when they should of. Which at best makes it lazy politicans and at worst corrupt politicans using pork to gain votes.
If they would have "done it the right way" would it have not also helped to garner vote? Do you think the farmer that will benefit from that funding will care how the paperwork was passed through. In essence you are upset because they cut through the "red tape" and did not follow procedures. In the end it accomplished the same goal, only quicker.
Quote:
There is a converse to that statement.
Yes there is, but for this example the converse does not come into play.
Quote:
Speaking and providing funding is to different aspects - speaking to gain votes is something I can accept because its the political process. Wasting tax payer dollars to garner votes is unacceptable.
Are you trying to say that the farm relief was a waste of tax payers money, no probable not. Now what funding you would determine waste may not be the same as the next person. I would say that the government providing money for a study of cross-connection control practices in potable water system would be money well spent. You may not.
Quote:
Why would I do that - I dont have a problem with your opinion your entitled to it, just like I am entitle to mine. In fact you have not demonstrated that any of my opinions are necessarily wrong only different then yours.
No, but we are still in the discussion.
Quote:
And I say its not unwarranted when the candidate is running a campaign to spend additional taxpayer dollars. The details I mentioned are easily planned and adjusted based upon the reality of the situation as it develops. If your defense is that your scared of your candidate being called indecisive or a flip flopper that is a weak arguement.
As stated above you and I may not care, but a vast number of not so informed voters do. Which goes to my point about the voters being the problem. Do what you are asking may get your vote, but in the end may lose far more. This is way it is an unfair request.
Quote:
Reading comprehension problems? What part of leaning toward Mickey Mouse did you not understand... That does not imply a decision has been made.
As it seem that the candidates will not be giving you what you demand, Mickey is looking like your Mouse.
Quote:
No problems sleeping at all - my consience is clear, no feelings of inadquecy that you seem to have given your nature of wanting to make certain comments directed at the individual versus the actual arguement - like I said before knucklehead tit for tat.
A few lite jabs, and I'm having feeling of inadequacy? They get the blood pumping.
Quote:
Give you a clue my heart wasn't ever in it, just my distracted mind.
How many pages and how many words, and your heart was not in it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Redleg
Get used to it he is a politican first and foremost.
I was hopping that he and McCain would stay out of the muck, I guess not.
