Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 08:28 pm
Train wreck?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 08:33 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...


A search of FF's posts key word Wright turned up 42,745 hits.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 08:37 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...


A search of FF's posts key word Wright turned up 42,745 hits.


Or 152....

A search of Roxxxanne's name, and Wright brings up 128 hits.

16 for me
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 08:52 pm
maporsche wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...Wright...


A search of FF's posts key word Wright turned up 42,745 hits.


Or 152....

A search of Roxxxanne's name, and Wright brings up 128 hits.

122 of them are quotes of FF in my posts, genius.

http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=955


And I wish you would find some other woman to stalk.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 09:02 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
And I wish you would find some other woman to stalk.


That's funny coming from you.

Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 11:20 pm
nimh wrote:

.... Even if sometimes you drive me to "a certain impatience" much like Diest and I did to you - and for a surprising number of the same reasons. It's always easier to see it in the other, I suppose, especially if stark differences in style cloak the essential similarities of one's flaws.


Very perceptive and well said. You are right.

I thought my examples of Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, Bush and Mitterand were devastating to your argument though.

I still cannot understand your rejection of the original, basic argument that humans make choices based on their intuitive perceptions, not explicit formulas; that in voting to select political leaders (as opposed to legislators) they are selecting people, not specific policies; and that the accepted historical judgement, based on the history of U.S. presidential elections very clearly confirms all that.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 02:17 am
georgeob1 wrote:
nimh wrote:

.... Even if sometimes you drive me to "a certain impatience" much like Diest and I did to you - and for a surprising number of the same reasons. It's always easier to see it in the other, I suppose, especially if stark differences in style cloak the essential similarities of one's flaws.


Very perceptive and well said. You are right.

I thought my examples of Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, Bush and Mitterand were devastating to your argument though.

I still cannot understand your rejection of the original, basic argument that humans make choices based on their intuitive perceptions, not explicit formulas; that in voting to select political leaders (as opposed to legislators) they are selecting people, not specific policies; and that the accepted historical judgement, based on the history of U.S. presidential elections very clearly confirms all that.


That's fine and all ob1, but I'm not arguing that people don't vote based on their perceptions, I'm just saying that it's dumb. I'm saying that we should have a higher standard.

It's true that people vote this way, but it's not because it is superior, it's because it's easier. Anyone can just look at the cover of a book. I reject outright the notion that those who make judgements on the cover are on a equal playing field as those who take the time to read the book.

You seem to critisize Obama supporters as if they are irrational in their support, yet you simultaneously through out some idea that you can't be critisized for your view on making choices? If you think it's okay to make a choice on your intuition, then you wouldn't be attacking Obama supporters like you are.

I assure you, my intuition lines up nicely with my views on Obama based on his platform and his history. So even if you were to convince me to abandon my "meaningless" method to vote, and adapt yours, there would be no change.

T
K
O

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 06:56 am
I've been happy with how the gas-tax thing has been going. I thought this was a good summary by Jonathan Chait:

Jonathan Chait wrote:
Generally, betting on the intelligence of the American public is a bad move. But, like Noam, I think this is a great fight for Obama right now. Here's how pointing out his refusal to pander on the gas tax helps Obama:

1. Obama needs to move the narrative past race/class/gender splits, and the gas tax -- a substantive issue where the campaigns clearly differ -- is the only path that's offering itself right now.

2. Mark Schmitt once wrote, "It's not what you say about the issues, it's what the issues say about you." In other words, the specific substance of a candidate's positions matters less than the meta-narrative those issues create around the candidate. John McCain's endorsement of campaign finance reform helped him, not because the public was champing at the bit to ban soft money, but because it suggested that McCain was an independent-minded reformer. Opposing the gas tax suspension positions Obama the same way.

3. As Noam has pointed it, it allows him to tie Clinton to McCain. Her political strength is her wonkiness, and her weakness is her reputation for dishonesty and ruthlessness. This issue cuts away at her strength and reinforces her weakness.

4. It lets him tie McCain to Clinton. McCain's biggest asset is his reputation as a truth-teller. By pandering on an issue where the whole news media knows he's wrong, McCain is squandering his most precious asset. So Obama hammering this issue now will pay dividends in the general election.


http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/01/how-to-beat-gas-tax-demagoguery.aspx

I'd add a 5th, an emphasis of something he said in passing (close to his #2 but a little different):

5. It's a refusal to pander. I think this is good as a general concept but is especially good now, as many people have seen the Wright "divorce" as pandering (though I disagree with that take). Strong, principled, and not necessarily politically expedient is a good place for him to be right now.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 07:02 am
I agree with that. I've thought this before, but I think this is a good time to point out to people that both Clinton and McCain think we're too stupid to see through the pander. So on top of how this issue hits both of their strengths, it also could make them look like cynical elitists.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 07:49 am
(bookmark)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 08:21 am
georgeob1 wrote:
nimh wrote:

.... Even if sometimes you drive me to "a certain impatience" much like Diest and I did to you - and for a surprising number of the same reasons. It's always easier to see it in the other, I suppose, especially if stark differences in style cloak the essential similarities of one's flaws.


Very perceptive and well said. You are right.

I thought my examples of Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, Bush and Mitterand were devastating to your argument though.

I still cannot understand your rejection of the original, basic argument that humans make choices based on their intuitive perceptions, not explicit formulas; that in voting to select political leaders (as opposed to legislators) they are selecting people, not specific policies; and that the accepted historical judgement, based on the history of U.S. presidential elections very clearly confirms all that.

I agreed, george, I thought you hit one out of the park by pointing out the parallels. Proving that current polls on Bush mean little or nothing by the time history more accurately judges the man.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 08:35 am
georgeob1:

When DTKO says ...

Diest TKO wrote:
... yet you simultaneously through out some idea that you can't be critisized for your view on making choices?


... by "through out" he means "throw out," not "throughout."



[/communication facilitation]
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 10:26 am
Good stuff here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/02/obama-compares-clinton-to_n_99813.html
Quote:
Now, the two Washington candidates in the race have been attacking me because I don't support their idea. In fact, yesterday Senator Clinton demanded that everyone go on the record on this issue. She even borrowed one of President Bush's favorite phrases, and said that every member of Congress had to tell her - "are they with us or against us?"

Well, folks have been weighing in. And you know what? It turns out that people want to be on the side of the American people - they don't want to be for something that is such an obvious election year gimmick; they don't want to line up behind an idea that's more about trying to get a few votes than getting you meaningful relief.

....

But Senator Clinton does have some support for her plan in Congress. After all, the person who first proposed it was John McCain. So I guess when she says "are you with us or against us" - Senator Clinton is referring to her and John McCain. That's one vote she's got, because on this issue, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are reading from the same political playbook.

This isn't a real solution. It's a political stunt. This is what Washington does whenever there's a big problem. Politicians pretend that they're looking out for you, but they're just looking out for their poll numbers. Senator Clinton's own staff even told the Washington Post that they knew the idea might not make much of a difference for you, but it could make a big difference for her campaign. And when the Clinton campaign was pressed to find a single expert who supported her plan - I'm not making this up - they put her campaign pollster on the phone to talk about how the idea polls well.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 11:08 am
This temporary elimination of the federal gas tax is worthless. I say impose an even bigger tax so that we can pay for some improvements on the federal highway system. What really wastes my gas is the hour I need to sit in traffic almost at a standstill.

Clinton and McCain are obviously using election year politics here. Good on Obama for standing out against it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 11:10 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Good stuff here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/02/obama-compares-clinton-to_n_99813.html
Quote:
Now, the two Washington candidates in the race have been attacking me because I don't support their idea. In fact, yesterday Senator Clinton demanded that everyone go on the record on this issue. She even borrowed one of President Bush's favorite phrases, and said that every member of Congress had to tell her - "are they with us or against us?"

Well, folks have been weighing in. And you know what? It turns out that people want to be on the side of the American people - they don't want to be for something that is such an obvious election year gimmick; they don't want to line up behind an idea that's more about trying to get a few votes than getting you meaningful relief.

....

But Senator Clinton does have some support for her plan in Congress. After all, the person who first proposed it was John McCain. So I guess when she says "are you with us or against us" - Senator Clinton is referring to her and John McCain. That's one vote she's got, because on this issue, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are reading from the same political playbook.

This isn't a real solution. It's a political stunt. This is what Washington does whenever there's a big problem. Politicians pretend that they're looking out for you, but they're just looking out for their poll numbers. Senator Clinton's own staff even told the Washington Post that they knew the idea might not make much of a difference for you, but it could make a big difference for her campaign. And when the Clinton campaign was pressed to find a single expert who supported her plan - I'm not making this up - they put her campaign pollster on the phone to talk about how the idea polls well.


It's a politcal stunt with a short life, and with consequences not spelled out by either McCain or Hillary. The message is in the details; and they fail on both counts! Some people still want them to be our president. Go figure.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 11:11 am
cicerone imposter wrote:

Some people still want them to be our president. Go figure.


Me included.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 11:13 am
maporsche wrote:
This temporary elimination of the federal gas tax is worthless. I say impose an even bigger tax so that we can pay for some improvements on the federal highway system. What really wastes my gas is the hour I need to sit in traffic almost at a standstill.

Clinton and McCain are obviously using election year politics here. Good on Obama for standing out against it.
And good on you to recognize it.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 11:13 am
no question the gas tax thing is inconsequential.....
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 11:17 am
Foxfyre wrote:
nimh wrote:
Finn:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Returning every Sunday,for two decades, to a church where the minister makes crude and hateful comments about homosexuals


David Mendell:

Quote:
Wright remains a maverick among Chicago's vast assortment of black preachers. He will question Scripture when he feels it forsakes common sense; he is an ardent foe of mandatory school prayer; and he is a staunch advocate for homosexual rights, which is almost unheard-of among African-American ministers. Gay and lesbian couples, with hands clasped, can be spotted in Trinity's pews each Sunday.


This is not at all unusual in any UCC congregation most of which also ordain gay clergy, participate in anti-war protests, and are pro-illegal immigration. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American racist message is not typical of your typical UCC congregation, however, and probably would not be tolerated in any UCC congregations other than TUCC.

What does being Gay, anti-war protests, pro-illegal immigrants and what YOU perceive as anti-American, (because YOU say it is), have anything to do what Jerimiah Wright ACTUALLY said? What you've done by your statement, is exactly what the editor of Rev. Wright's sermons did, "cherry pick" language, add false statements and beliefs of YOUR own and injected them into a "non-statement" made by no one but yourself! It's called "propaganda"! Go back and read your own statement! Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2008 11:19 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I do Blueflame. And, according to Barack Obama earlier today, so does he.

Now He's playing politics of FEAR! Thanks to people like YOU!
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 809
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 07/09/2025 at 08:21:34