I Have Stated Consistenly And Everywhere

FreeDuck wrote:

Congrats, bear. You must be very pleased.

thank you for your graciousness free duck. I am pleased.

I think this may be a watershed moment re momentum for Hillary... but I by no means think she is going to just cakewalk over Obama. I do think she's the next president however.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Quote:
There is a greater degree of racism to be found in the North than in the South, and Northerners, in general, tend to be regional bigots.

Would you agree with me that, when sweeping statements like the above are made, it would make sense to append either a link to something authoritative, or at least a little "IMO" at the end?

No.

Obviously it's my opinion. Virtually every post I write is (unless I use quotes or provide citations) either my opinion or my personal understanding of an issue based upon what I read, hear and have experienced.

If someone reads my posts (or, frankly, anyone else's) and requires a little "IMO" to distinguish it from a statement authoritative fact then I question what they doing in this forum and fear they may hurt them self.

Others may disagree, but to me this is a forum for discussion, of expressing opinions and ideas. Sometimes these expressions are rather lofty and sometimes they are rather base, but they are expressions, not scholarly treatises.

When I engage in discussions with people, whether it be in my living room, on and airplane, or in a bar, I don't have at my side a folder of press clippings or photocopies of pages of books so that I can instantly offer authoratative proof of something I have said. I don't approach this forum much differently.

It that bothers you or others, so be it. I'm really not worried about cutting back on the number of my A2K detractors.

So let this serve as a public notice: I participate in this forum at my leisure, not as an extension of my profession. I do not claim to be a scholar and do not feel bound by the conventions and regulations of scholastic writings. Most of what I write is nothing more or less than my opion and an expression of my understanding. If you wish to prove my contentions wrong with a cited source, please do so. I am frequently wrong and can always learn. If you want me to provide cites and footnotes and a bibliography for my posts, you are bound to be disappointed.

I am uncomfortablly aware that this post seems overly focused on me, but I am pushing the submit button, because I think that it reflects a general issue (or failing) relative to the discourse in this forum.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Based on last night's network debates, I believe, Edwards has the best chance of either winning himself, or helping Hillary win.

Unfortunately, the Republicans seemed too divided on illegal immigrants and health care.

Personally, I think Edwards is very different from the Southern Good 'Ole Boy image, to the point that Northerners see him as one of their own. Just an opinion.

As a former Northerner who moved south 25 years ago, I would not be surprised to learn that current Northerners subscribe to the Good Ole Boy stereotype as representing 90% of all Southerners.

However, I doubt his Northern supporters see him as one of their own as much as a rare Southerner who "gets it," and has the added charm of pulling of "Y'all"

There is a greater degree of racism to be found in the North than in the South, and Northerners, in general, tend to be regional bigots.

What are you saying? Northerners will, or will not vote for him en masse? As LBJ might have said, "Don't pussy foot around."

I thought what I was saying was clear: Northeners have absolutely no reason to see him as "one of their own." Quite the contrary. Northeners who are captivated by his populist growl, may very well vote for him, but they will be in the minority. Witness New Hampshire.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

When I engage in discussions with people, whether it be in my living room, on and airplane, or in a bar, I don't have at my side a folder of press clippings or photocopies of pages of books so that I can instantly offer authoratative proof of something I have said. I don't approach this forum much differently.

Do you consider yourself an extrovert? I say this since I do not converse with strangers more than a momentary comment about a slow moving line, perhaps. My posting on a forum does not make me an extrovert, since if you all were here, I would not be so willing to talk.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

snood wrote:
Yeah, I agree that A2K is probably not being scanned by partisan operatives looking for strategic gems of rhetoric.

The rolling eyes icon suggests that you actually do believe A2K is being scanned for strategic gems of rhetoric.

Is this really the case?

It is so ridiculous a notion that I don't want to conclude, without inquiring, that you hold to it.

While I've never heard them claim to use A2K to "[scan] for strategic gems of rhetoric" I know of a couple of politically influential people who read and/or participate on A2K.

I'll leave it up to them to divulge if they wish but I do know that there are a few and at least one was a political speech writer for a prominent politician. There's an editor in chief of a fairly important newspaper, a CIA analyst, and some others I can think of offhand that hold influential positions in think tanks.

As far as I know, they participate for their personal enjoyment only and not for any political benefit.

Not that I agree that one should be worried about what they say here of course, that is a bit silly. But it's not a stretch to consider that among the millions of readers the site has had there are politically influential people.

0 Replies

and what a wonderful place we live in that we can spout off our opinions, express our anger and dissatisfaction, sometimes inappropriately, without any real fear of the knock on the door in the middle of the night.

In that respect, I am in completely agreement with even the most right wing nuts in saying God Bless America.

0 Replies

Robert Gentel wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
snood wrote:
Yeah, I agree that A2K is probably not being scanned by partisan operatives looking for strategic gems of rhetoric.

The rolling eyes icon suggests that you actually do believe A2K is being scanned for strategic gems of rhetoric.

Is this really the case?

It is so ridiculous a notion that I don't want to conclude, without inquiring, that you hold to it.

While I've never heard them claim to use A2K to "[scan] for strategic gems of rhetoric" I know of a couple of politically influential people who read and/or participate on A2K.

I'll leave it up to them to divulge if they wish but I do know that there are a few and at least one was a political speech writer for a prominent politician. There's an editor in chief of a fairly important newspaper, a CIA analyst, and some others I can think of offhand that hold influential positions in think tanks.

As far as I know, they participate for their personal enjoyment only and not for any political benefit.

Not that I agree that one should be worried about what they say here of course, that is a bit silly. But it's not a stretch to consider that among the millions of readers the site has had there are politically influential people.

There are too many anonymous members on A2K to discount the possibility that one or more of them may be something "big" in the real world. I might be one, or I might be a non-descript nobody. It doesn't really matter since we all stand and fall on what we write and with the exception of a few poor syncophants, almost no one gives a free ride to someone simply because they have mastered the fine art of cut and paste. This is how it should be, because if you don't make a good point here, who cares what you are out there?

It's more than possible that someone will use what he or she reads here - out there, but that is a far cry from political operatives prospecting these threads in the hope that they will find the rhetorical equivalent of the Hope Diamond.

I don't know which is more unbelievable, that operatives are mining A2K or that there are any Hope Diamonds to be found.

No one needs to fear that they will sink their candidates chance at the presidency by writing some unflattering comment about them. Believe me, if you can think of it, so can your candidate's opponents.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

and what a wonderful place we live in that we can spout off our opinions, express our anger and dissatisfaction, sometimes inappropriately, without any real fear of the knock on the door in the middle of the night.

In that respect, I am in completely agreement with even the most right wing nuts in saying God Bless America.

Indeed.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

No one needs to fear that they will sink their candidates chance at the presidency by writing some unflattering comment about them. Believe me, if you can think of it, so can your candidate's opponents.

Finally something we agree on. I never got the argument about withholding all too sharp criticisms of one's 'own' side because you shouldnt provide the enemy with ammunition. Smacks like self-overestimation to me.

Nothing any one of us says here is going to have some deciding effect on the outcomes of the elections. There are hundreds of political sites with blogs and forums around, where you got thousands of random opinions like ours every day, and anything we could come up with has already been said a dozen times elsewhere. We're on A2K, not on the editorial pages of the New York Times. Anything we post here will be inconsequential, so feel free to talk freely already.

0 Replies

foofie wrote :

Quote:

If Hillary wins, it would be interesting to see her, as Commander In Chief, addressing the troops at some military function. The benefit? More young women might join the military. (It frees up males for combat roles, rather than doing many "support functions," as the women would then do. No different than Israel's military, where women are drafted, but are not put into front line combat situations during a war.)

rather interesting for such an advanced country as the U.S.
in the canadian army , women serve in frontline duty (afghanistan) just like the men . a number of women actually serve as unit commanders of frontline troops .
it doesn't seem to cause anyone to have second thoughts .
hbg

Quote:

A female soldier from Canada was killed while fighting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan on Wednesday, military officials said.

Capt. Nichola Goddard, 26, had been serving in Afghanistan with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. She was a member of the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, based in Shilo, Man.

full story :
CANADIAN KILLED IN COMBAT

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

No one needs to fear that they will sink their candidates chance at the presidency by writing some unflattering comment about them. Believe me, if you can think of it, so can your candidate's opponents.

Agreed. It's all been said over and over and over. And like Freeduck said, that's a bad reason not to say something anyway. So with that in mind, I thought Obama's last name would give him trouble. I just recently learned his middle name. Laughing

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

foofie wrote :

Quote:
If Hillary wins, it would be interesting to see her, as Commander In Chief, addressing the troops at some military function. The benefit? More young women might join the military. (It frees up males for combat roles, rather than doing many "support functions," as the women would then do. No different than Israel's military, where women are drafted, but are not put into front line combat situations during a war.)

rather interesting for such an advanced country as the U.S.
in the canadian army , women serve in frontline duty (afghanistan) just like the men . a number of women actually serve as unit commanders of frontline troops .
it doesn't seem to cause anyone to have second thoughts .
hbg

Quote:
A female soldier from Canada was killed while fighting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan on Wednesday, military officials said.

Capt. Nichola Goddard, 26, had been serving in Afghanistan with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. She was a member of the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, based in Shilo, Man.

full story :
CANADIAN KILLED IN COMBAT

I could be wrong, but I believe the reason that Israeli women in the military, that do learn to fire weapons, are not put in front line combat positions, during a war, is because when they were put in a front line position in a past war, guess what - yes, word got back to the enemy, and the enemy fought better. How could they face the people back home and say they lost to Israeli women. So, it may just be wise to keep women out of the front lines, since men don't mind as much, apparently, losing to other men. Naturally, this can all be apocryphal, or a red herring, as to why they are not put in front line positions during a war. But, it is an interesting thought, true or not.

0 Replies

As you suspected, you are. Military service is compulsory for men and women in Israel and both learn to fire weapons regardless of their roles.

Women who volunteer for combat positions can serve in combat but they aren't required to as part of their compulsory service.

0 Replies

I Have Stated Consistenly And Everywhere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know