georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:11 am
Not at all. You are resting your point on a rather huge fallacy - namely the proposition that there are specific, knowable one-to-one correspondences between the present & past associations of people, and all of their possible specific future actions. This, of course, is patent nonsense, and I am surprised to find that you apparently believe it.

We can, with some rough degree of accuracy, forecast the central tendencies of leaders and politicians, based on their past words, actions and associations. However, even that is, at best an approximate process for guessing the average character of future actions: it offers nothing at all with respect to forecasting specific actions in response to specific situations.

You are insisting that, unless one can defensibly predict a specific adverse consequence of some past thought, action or association, one cannot claim any inference whatever about his future behavior. This flies in the face of basic scientific principles involving even relatively simple dynamic systems --- not to mention common sense.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:22 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Not at all. You are resting your point on a rather huge fallacy - namely the proposition that there are specific, knowable one-to-one correspondences between the present & past associations of people, and all of their possible specific future actions. This, of course, is patent nonsense, and I am surprised to find that you apparently believe it.

We can, with some rough degree of accuracy, forecast the central tendencies of leaders and politicians, based on their past words, actions and associations. However, even that is, at best an approximate process for guessing the average character of future actions: it offers nothing at all with respect to forecasting specific actions in response to specific situations.

You are insisting that, unless one can defensibly predict a specific adverse consequence of some past thought, action or association, one cannot claim any inference whatever about his future behavior. This flies in the face of basic scientific principles involving even relatively simple dynamic systems --- not to mention common sense.


So, you're saying that, even though we can't predict whether his association with Wright will have any negative effects upon his ability to lead the country at all, he should still be attacked for that association - because it might?

I'm sorry to say that I don't find this to be a persuasive argument against his candidacy. It breaks down upon the lightest of examination, into an extremely nebulous criticism. There's been no reason whatsoever to doubt that Obama is patriotic, and that he loves his country; to insinuate that his association with Wright brings this issue into doubt, is something of a stretch, and an indefensible one, which relies on the classic Republican trope of 'anti-Americanism,' that wonderful smear, that classic attack, which can be used to sow indefinable doubts about a candidate who merely happens to be Liberal.

As I've said before - it's the Muslim smear, with a new face on it. Now, nobody believes that he is a Muslim - but he might be, some say, and who knows what decisions he will make as prez due to it! This fog of doubt about an honorable candidate is exactly the point of the smears; to try and make him seem as dirty as the other candidates in the race, when he isn't.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:24 am
quoting an article she found on the web, Roxxxanne wrote:
I wonder what Paul Krugman, who has pointed to Alan Greenspan's role in fostering the current financial crisis, would think of asking Greenspan to help decide if the US should help rescue home owners, and not just the Wall Street financial giants.


Krugman himself just answered your question:

In his blog today, Paul Krugman wrote:
All-stars
OK, this is pretty dumb. Hillary Clinton wants a high-level commissionCharles Prince, Stanley O'Neal, and Angelo Mozilo to the commission?


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/all-stars/
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:27 am
Nice catch,Thomas. Of course, the writer's question was rhetorical.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:30 am
Limbaugh's Dirty Tricks


Abrams praises investigation of Limbaugh's Dem primary 'dirty tricks'
David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Published: Tuesday March 25, 2008

| StumbleUpon


Print This Email This

This month's primaries in Ohio and Texas resurrected Hillary Clinton from the political graveyard for the umpteenth time this election season.

Conservative talker Rush Limbaugh is taking credit for Clinton's continued presence in the race after encouraging Republican voters to switch parties before those two big states voted March 4, and he has called on Pennsylvania GOPers to do the same before their state votes April 22. Limbaugh's listeners are worried about an election fraud investigation, which could result in criminal charges for voters in at least one Ohio county.

MSNBC host Dan Abrams says the right-wing radio host's aim is "to subvert democracy and inject dirty tricks into the Democratic nomination process."

"I've said it before, I think it's un-American to encourage people to vote for a candidate they don't want to win, in order to corrupt the process," Abrams said. "But in Ohio, it may also be illegal."

He went on to discuss a probe in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, where Board of Elections officials are launching an investigation into crossover voters to determine whether any are guilty of election fraud, a felony. Results of the investigation will be released March 31.

It's unlikely that Limbaugh single-handedly swung the results to Clinton in either state, as was his stated intention. Clinton and her Democratic rival Barack Obama split Republicans in Ohio, and Obama won Texas Republicans, according to network exit polls.

In Ohio's Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, the Plain Dealer reported that a "staggering" 16,000 Republicans switched parties to vote in the March 4 Democratic primary. Some GOP voters openly acknowledged their intention to meddle with the opposing party, writing messages like "For one day only" on pledges voters are required to sign indicating they will support the party whose primary they are voting in.

As staggering as the Cuyahoga County figure seemed, exit polls suggest crossover voters may have been even more prevalent elsewhere in the state. Nearly 325,000 voters cast a ballot for either Obama or Clinton in the Cleveland area, so Republicans accounted for about 5 percent of the Democratic turnout. Statewide, Republicans made up about 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, according to the exit polls.

Obama has touted his support among independents and GOP voters -- so-called Obamacans -- and while some crossover voters told the PD they voted for Clinton to set up an easy target for John McCain in the fall, others said they thought Obama would be an easier opponent. Plenty of Republicans also voted Democratic out of heart-felt beliefs, to be sure, as the GOP struggles in what is expected to be a rocky election year.

In Pennsylvania, Obama's campaign was working hard to get supporters to switch their registration from independent or Republican to Democratic. He even ran a radio ad reminding those voters that Monday was the last day they could register as Democrats to vote in the April 22 primary. Meanwhile, Limbaugh also has said he has "operatives" registering Republicans as Democrats to vote for Clinton.

Between March 10 and 17, the most recent timeframe available, more than 14,000 new Democrats registered to vote in Pennsylvania and 29,000 voters switched their registration to the Democratic party, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

Before Pennsylvania goes to the polls, the Cleveland, Ohio-area elections board will release the results of its investigation. Some ballots containt possible evidence of voter fraud, which in Ohio is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

"I'm looking for evidence," Sandy McNair, a Democratic member of the county's elections board tells the Plain Dealer. "I'm not interested in a witch hunt. But I am interested in holding people accountable, whether they're Democrat or Republican."
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:36 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Quote:
Obama could have done the easy thing to do, and simply distance himself from the church.


Are you saying he hasn't tried to do this?


Nope. He has maintained ties with the church and Wright himself, explicitly, while denouncing the statements which he doesn't consider appropriate.

Cycloptichorn

Just denounce the statements of the imperial wizard, but stay in the organization, is that the strategy, cyclops?


There's nothing wrong with the organization at all. I haven't seen anyone claim that this church hasn't been responsible for many, many good and Christian acts and actions within the Chicago community.

Cycloptichorn


yes and Hitler made the trains run on time.

why don't you address the racism issue instead of just dancing like you gotta go but can't find the lolly?

This particular church is a racist organization.

Their vision statement is based on the work of racist 'theologian' James Cone.

This is verified on the church website, (the part they haven't 'sanitized' in the past week

Quote:
The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology.
from http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm

Unfortunately for Obama, even the phony 'retirement' of Wright won't fix this.

The new pastor has sat for years under the same racist teaching at TUCC and is just as vulnerable to questions about why he didn't leave a racist church as Obama is.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:37 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, you're saying that, even though we can't predict whether his association with Wright will have any negative effects upon his ability to lead the country at all, he should still be attacked for that association - because it might?


One is often judged by the character of one's associates, Cyclops. In fact, at another time and in other threads, Bush has been judged on that same basis. I'm not saying you, Cyclops, have done so, but it is routinely done. This is not new.

As George said, you cannot predict specific future actions based on an individual's associations, but it is an indicator to some degree of the beliefs or character of the individual in question. If, hypothetically, McCain was a 20 year member of the KKK, who attended weekly rallies, etc., but he gave no other indication that he was a racist or believed what the KKK believe, I find it hard to believe you would take the position that his 20 year tie to that organization ought to have no bearing on his candidacy.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:37 am
Quote:

yes and Hitler made the trains run on time.


Godwin's law invalidates your post. Might want to be a little more careful next time.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:39 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

yes and Hitler made the trains run on time.


Godwin's law invalidates your post. Might want to be a little more careful next time.

Cycloptichorn


I don't believe in Godwin.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:40 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

yes and Hitler made the trains run on time.


Godwin's law invalidates your post. Might want to be a little more careful next time.

Cycloptichorn


Proclaiming something a 'law' doesn't make it so.

Answer the racism question, Cyclo.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:40 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, you're saying that, even though we can't predict whether his association with Wright will have any negative effects upon his ability to lead the country at all, he should still be attacked for that association - because it might?


One is often judged by the character of one's associates, Cyclops. In fact, at another time and in other threads, Bush has been judged on that same basis. I'm not saying you, Cyclops, have done so, but it is routinely done. This is not new.

As George said, you cannot predict specific future actions based on an individual's associations, but it is an indicator to some degree of the beliefs or character of the individual in question. If, hypothetically, McCain was a 20 year member of the KKK, who attended weekly rallies, etc., but he gave no other indication that he was a racist or believed what the KKK believe, I find it hard to believe you would take the position that his 20 year tie to that organization ought to have no bearing on his candidacy.


I think that comparing a church to the KKK is a little beyond the pale. There is no such comparison in this case.

What beliefs do you suspect Obama holds, which would make him a bad president, based upon his membership in Rev. Wright's church? I mean, with all this furor, there should be at least SOMETHING specific that people can point to.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:40 am
real life wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

yes and Hitler made the trains run on time.


Godwin's law invalidates your post. Might want to be a little more careful next time.

Cycloptichorn


Proclaiming something a 'law' doesn't make it so.

Answer the racism question, Cyclo.


There is no racism question. But thanks for playing the Smear Game!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:41 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

yes and Hitler made the trains run on time.


Godwin's law invalidates your post. Might want to be a little more careful next time.

Cycloptichorn


I don't believe in Godwin.


He believes in you, which is what matters Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:50 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
real life wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

yes and Hitler made the trains run on time.


Godwin's law invalidates your post. Might want to be a little more careful next time.

Cycloptichorn


Proclaiming something a 'law' doesn't make it so.

Answer the racism question, Cyclo.


There is no racism question.


If Obama now 'rejects' the comments Wright made, why didn't he leave the church years ago?

You cannot seriously make a case that 'Present' Obama was unaware of the views and sermons of his 'close personal friend, mentor and advisor'.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:53 am
real life wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
real life wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

yes and Hitler made the trains run on time.


Godwin's law invalidates your post. Might want to be a little more careful next time.

Cycloptichorn


Proclaiming something a 'law' doesn't make it so.

Answer the racism question, Cyclo.


There is no racism question.


If Obama now 'rejects' the comments Wright made, why didn't he leave the church years ago?

You cannot seriously make a case that 'Present' Obama was unaware of the views and sermons of his 'close personal friend, mentor and advisor'.


Jeez, how dense are you? I'll explain one more time:

There is far more to a person then a highlight reel of their worst comments and moments. It is entirely likely that Obama found many things to like and support about the Rev., despite not agreeing with some of his comments.

But, you're not interested in explanations or discussions, or anything of the sort, I must remind myself. Only in attacking and smearing Obama. You should admit it; come out and say, 'I don't care what you or anyone says, I'm still going to portray him as a racist and declare him 'unelectable,' in order to help beat him this Fall.' B/c that's the truth, man. It is evident from your repeated failure to actually engage the conversation, always retreating to the same tired lines and smears.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:55 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think that comparing a church to the KKK is a little beyond the pale. There is no such comparison in this case.


I made no such comparison.

It sounds like you missed my point. I'm not sure my restating it would add clarity.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 11:57 am
Cyclop, you are my hero. It astounds me how you stay in there and fight. My hat is truly off to you.

Where's Soz? Does anyone know?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 12:02 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think that comparing a church to the KKK is a little beyond the pale. There is no such comparison in this case.


I made no such comparison.

It sounds like you missed my point. I'm not sure my restating it would add clarity.


No, I got the point. I just don't agree that it is a valid one.

Let's say that McCain was a member of a church which preached intolerance towards Gays and Muslims. Now, this is quite easy to believe, as these are not uncommon things for many American churches to preach against. Should I say that McCain would also be intolerant towards these people, that we can predict his character, based not on his professed statements on the subject - of which there are extensive documentation - but upon his association? I don't think that would be either valid or accurate data upon which to make predictions or even look at general trends.

People might make those associations, and use them to attack him. But it wouldn't be right to do so, as you know. So how is it right to attack Obama for the same thing? I mean, you brought up the point yourself: the Bush family and the Bin Laden family have business dealings which go way back. I mean, way back, and in fact the Bush family and Carlyle group still do a ton of business with the Bin Laden family. Should we ask them to repudiate these ties? Is everyone damned by association? Obviously, many Conservatives would make the exact opposite judgment there, then they do in this case.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 12:09 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

yes and Hitler made the trains run on time.


Godwin's law invalidates your post. Might want to be a little more careful next time.

Cycloptichorn
Actually; that was Mussolini...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 12:19 pm
eoe wrote:
Cyclop, you are my hero. It astounds me how you stay in there and fight. My hat is truly off to you.

Where's Soz? Does anyone know?


I think she's traveling. I recall her posting about a host's gift for her cousin about a week ago.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 690
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2024 at 09:18:26