THE GENERAL ELECTION 2008

Foxfyre wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

One correction, FF. I dual majored, but only received one undergraduate degree.

Your second major didn't count? Or you didn't finish it?

It counted, and I finished it ... still, just the one Bachelor's degree with a dual major.

Ticomaya wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

One correction, FF. I dual majored, but only received one undergraduate degree.

Your second major didn't count? Or you didn't finish it?

It counted, and I finished it ... still, just the one Bachelor's degree with a dual major.

Oh okay. But you can still show a B.A. in history plus a B.A. or B.S. in your other discipline, yes?

Speaking of ethics, republicans and my home state Heather Wilson (on the list for investigation by the house ethics committee) lost her primary bid for the US Senate to Steve Pierce a local wingnut who has been a consistent and strong advocate of drilling in Otero Mesa, New Mexico despite environmentalists and the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) assertion that only a minuscule amount of oil and natural gas lie beneath the grasslands. Rep. Pearce, however, contends that drilling in the area would keep natural gas prices level and create jobs thereby stimulating the state's economy. Initially, the BLM opposed opening the area arguing that drilling would both directly and indirectly destruct the habitat for wildlife. In 2000, however, BLM reversed its decision and proposed a plan that would open nearly 1.4 million acres to drilling. The BLM turnaround coincided with the largest lease holder in the Otero Mesa, Yates Petroleum, donating over $230,000 to the GOP over the last three election cycles.

Yates Petroleum also has been the single largest donor to Rep. Pearce's campaign committees since 2002 with $32,490 in donations. Individually, members of the Yates family have contributed $78,379.99 to Rep. Pearce since he first ran for office in 2002.

If Rep. Pearce advocated opening up Otero Mesa to drilling in exchange for campaign contributions, he may have violated the bribery statute or accepted illegal gratuities.
But then ethics is not a strong point of republicans in general. in fact, I would say they reek just slight more so than democrats.

dyslexia wrote:

Speaking of ethics, republicans and my home state Heather Wilson (on the list for investigation by the house ethics committee) lost her primary bid for the US Senate to Steve Pierce a local wingnut who has been a consistent and strong advocate of drilling in Otero Mesa, New Mexico despite environmentalists and the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) assertion that only a minuscule amount of oil and natural gas lie beneath the grasslands. Rep. Pearce, however, contends that drilling in the area would keep natural gas prices level and create jobs thereby stimulating the state's economy. Initially, the BLM opposed opening the area arguing that drilling would both directly and indirectly destruct the habitat for wildlife. In 2000, however, BLM reversed its decision and proposed a plan that would open nearly 1.4 million acres to drilling. The BLM turnaround coincided with the largest lease holder in the Otero Mesa, Yates Petroleum, donating over $230,000 to the GOP over the last three election cycles.

Yates Petroleum also has been the single largest donor to Rep. Pearce's campaign committees since 2002 with $32,490 in donations. Individually, members of the Yates family have contributed $78,379.99 to Rep. Pearce since he first ran for office in 2002.

If Rep. Pearce advocated opening up Otero Mesa to drilling in exchange for campaign contributions, he may have violated the bribery statute or accepted illegal gratuities.
But then ethics is not a strong point of republicans in general. in fact, I would say they reek just slight more so than democrats.

So the BLM, while Bill Clinton was President, reversed a decision they had made.
And somehow, its the fault of a candidate for congress, who had no guarantee of winning the election?

Thats a stretch, even for you.

Speaking of changing positions, Obama has retreated from his recent pledge for an undivided Jerusalem. Note at the end of the article that his spokesman, Wexler, says that he didn't backtrack or even amend his position. So did he or didn't he?

Foxfyre wrote:

Speaking of changing positions, Obama has retreated from his recent pledge for an undivided Jerusalem. Note at the end of the article that his spokesman, Wexler, says that he didn't backtrack or even amend his position. So did he or didn't he?

No, he didn't. according to the Jerusalem Post ...





... but Olmert called Obama's address "moving" (same source as above: Jerusalem Post, 06.06.08, frontpage and page 18):

That's not the way it has been reported.

Oh for crying out loud Walter. Did I say or even suggest or even hint that you falsified the source? All I said is that the reporting of the event didn't back up your source or your opinion about it and I provided two sources to illustrate my point. In your world is every opinion contrary to your own some kind of personal affront?

That's not the way it has been reported.

Even the headline in your source says Obama backtracks on the issue. So you seem to be arguing against even your own source.

Foxfyre wrote:

Oh for crying out loud Walter. Did I say or even suggest or even hint that you falsified the source? All I said is that the reporting of the event didn't back up your source or your opinion about it and I provided two sources to illustrate my point. In your world is every opinion contrary to your own some kind of personal affront?

I quoted two copied/pasted passages from the JP. To which you responded

Foxfyre wrote:

That's not the way it has been reported.

That is totally different as if you had said that the reporting of the event didn't back up my source.

Foxfyre wrote:

Even the headline in your source says Obama backtracks on the issue. So you seem to be arguing against even your own source.

Critics about bad journalism is one of your favourites, I think? I didn't write that report nor did I text the headline.

You said that Obama had not switched his position on a divided Jerusalem and posted unlinked excerpts from the Jerusalem Post....


Any idea how to link a printed paper besides copying it?

Foxfyre wrote:

Then you posted a full page from the Jerusalem Post that actually supported my opinion that Obama had reversed his statement on Jerusalem.

It didn't - besides, how do you know, since above you said I posted 'unlinked'?

Foxfyre wrote:

I was disagreeing with you Walter but I wasn't accusing you of anything.

Well, you didn't accuse me, right. You only wote that my quotes were reported in a different way.

Foxfyre wrote:

You said that Obama had not switched his position on a divided Jerusalem and posted unlinked excerpts from the Jerusalem Post....


Any idea how to link a printed paper besides copying it?

I assume the two excerpts I linked were excerpts from printed papers. I didn't fault you for not linking your source, however. I simply commented that the excerpts did not reflect what has been reported.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Then you posted a full page from the Jerusalem Post that actually supported my opinion that Obama had reversed his statement on Jerusalem.

It didn't - besides, how do you know, since above you said I posted 'unlinked'?

I based my comment on what you actually did post. I can read a headline and see what it says when it is posted here. The headline says "Obama Backtracks on a United J'lem" That is precisely what I said he did. And that is what you said he didn't do. And now you're trying to tell me the Headline on the newspaper page you posted doesn't say that?

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I was disagreeing with you Walter but I wasn't accusing you of anything.

Well, you didn't accuse me, right. You only wote that my quotes were reported in a different way.

Thank you for finally admitting that I did not accuse you. I suppose an apology from you for misjudging me is out of the question. (It usually is.)

And yes I said that your opinion, which you presumably attempted to support with those posted excerpts, had been reported in a different way and posted examples to support my opinion along with links to the sources to show how the reporting was different.