Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 11:02 am
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And that is where the debate should be.

And by golly, that's where it's gonna be. Because you're the one who decides where debates ought ot be. Smile


No I don't get to decide where debates ought to be. But I can see that the debate ought to be over real issues and definitions instead of made up ones.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 11:06 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And that is where the debate should be.

And by golly, that's where it's gonna be. Because you're the one who decides where debates ought ot be. Smile


No I don't get to decide where debates ought to be. But I can see that the debate ought to be over real issues and definitions instead of made up ones.


All definitions are made up.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Not a Soccer Mom
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 11:34 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And that is where the debate should be.

And by golly, that's where it's gonna be. Because you're the one who decides where debates ought ot be. Smile


No I don't get to decide where debates ought to be. But I can see that the debate ought to be over real issues and definitions instead of made up ones.


All definitions are made up.

Cycloptichorn



Not only are they made up but everyone has his or her own interpretations and the meaning of words change as time goes on.

What Foxfyre just exposed in his statement is that he apparently sees things as black and white.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 11:35 am
Obviously you haven't read many of her posts.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 11:40 am
McGentrix wrote:
Abe Lincoln the liberal? Doesn't sound right to me. Wasn't it the liberal democrats of the south that wanted to keep slavery and those pesky conservative republicans from the north that wanted to keep our union from dissolving and banning slavery?

It was the Republicans in the Senate that got the civil rights act of 1964 passed while the democrats tried to filibuster it.

No, it was the conservative Democrats in the South that wanted to keep slavery and fought the Civil Rights Act. Those Democrats would become Dixiecrats when their racist laws were rejected and later become southern Republicans. But yes, it was the moderate Republican party who passed civil rights legislation. Haven't seem them in a while.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 12:05 pm
engineer wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Abe Lincoln the liberal? Doesn't sound right to me. Wasn't it the liberal democrats of the south that wanted to keep slavery and those pesky conservative republicans from the north that wanted to keep our union from dissolving and banning slavery?

It was the Republicans in the Senate that got the civil rights act of 1964 passed while the democrats tried to filibuster it.

No, it was the conservative Democrats in the South that wanted to keep slavery and fought the Civil Rights Act. Those Democrats would become Dixiecrats when their racist laws were rejected and later become southern Republicans. But yes, it was the moderate Republican party who passed civil rights legislation. Haven't seem them in a while.


If you look at the actual votes on the Civil Rights Act, it was southern Democrats and southern Republicans who mostly opposed it--there were just precious few southern Republicans at that time.

Most northern Democrats and most northern Republicans supported it. (Southern in this context refers to the former Confederate States.)

By party

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 12:16 pm
Ticomaya to Buttrfly wrote:
You can't admit he does anything wrong, can you? You haven't progressed that far in your relationship? Still in the honeymoon stage? Madly in love?


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/obamapotato.jpg

The Obama Gaffe Machine
By JOHN FUND
May 30, 2008; Page A13

For months, Barack Obama has had the image of an incandescent, golden-tongued Wundercandidate. That image may be fraying now.

As smart and credentialed as he is, Sen. Obama is often an indifferent speaker without a teleprompter. He has large gaps in his knowledge base, and is just as likely to dig in and embrace a policy misstatement as abandon it. ABC reporter Jake Tapper calls him "a one-man gaffe machine."

Take the Auschwitz flub, where Mr. Obama erroneously claimed last weekend in New Mexico that his uncle helped liberate the Nazi concentration camp. Reporters noted Mr. Obama's revised claim, that it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. They largely downplayed the error. Yet in another, earlier gaffe back in 2002, Mr. Obama claimed his grandfather knew U.S. troops who liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka - even though only Russian troops entered those concentration camps.

That hardly disqualifies Mr. Obama from being president. But you can bet that if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing it would have been the focus of much more attention, especially after her Bosnia sniper-fire fib. That's because gaffes are often blown up or downplayed based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician.

When John McCain claimed, while on a trip to Iraq in March, that Sunni (as opposed to Shiite) militants in Iraq are being supported by Iran, coverage of the alleged blunder tracked Democratic attacks on his age and stamina. (In fact, Iran may well be supplying both Sunni and Shiite militants.) Dan Quayle, tagged with a reputation as a dumb blond male, never lived down his misspelling of "potatoe."

Mr. Obama, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, has largely been given a pass for his gaffes. Many are trivial, such as his suggestion this month that America has 57 states, and his bizarre statement in a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico that America's "fallen heroes" were present and listening to him in the audience.

Some gaffes involve mangling his family history. Last year in Selma, Ala., for example, he said that his birth was inspired by events there which took place four years after he was born. While this gaffe can be chalked up to fatigue or cloudy memory, others are more substantive - such as his denial last April that it was his handwriting on a questionnaire in which, as a state senate candidate, he favored a ban on handguns. His campaign now contends that, even if it was his handwriting, this doesn't prove he read the full questionnaire.

Mr. Obama told a Portland, Ore., crowd this month that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us," saying that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets aren't much to worry about. But Iran has almost one-fourth the population of the U.S. and is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons. The next day Mr. Obama had to reverse himself and declare he had "made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Last week in Orlando, Fla., he said he would meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez to discuss, among other issues, Chávez's support of the Marxist FARC guerrillas in Colombia. The next day, in Miami, he insisted any country supporting the FARC should suffer "regional isolation." Obama advisers were left explaining how this circle could be squared.

In a debate last July, Mr. Obama pledged to meet, without precondition, the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba. He called President Bush's refusal to meet with them "ridiculous" and a "disgrace."

Heavily criticized, Mr. Obama dug in rather than backtrack. He's claimed, in defense of his position, that John F. Kennedy's 1961 summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna was a crucial meeting that led to the end of the Cold War.

Not quite. Kennedy himself admitted he was unprepared for Khrushchev's bullying. "He beat the hell out of me," Kennedy confided to advisers. The Soviet leader reported to his Politburo that the American president was weak. Two months later, the Berlin Wall was erected and stood for 28 years.

Reporters may now give Mr. Obama's many gaffes more notice. But don't count on them correcting an implicit bias in writing about such faux pas.

Over the years, reporters have tagged a long list of conservative public figures, from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, as dim and uninformed. The reputation of some of these men has improved over time. But can anyone name a leading liberal figure who has developed a similar media reputation, even though the likes of Al Gore, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have committed substantial gaffes at times? No reporter I've talked to has come up with a solid example.

It's clear some gaffes are considered more newsworthy than others. But it would behoove the media to check their premises when deciding just how much attention to pay to them. The best guideline might be: Show some restraint and judgment, but report them all.
WSJ LINK
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 04:01 pm
The WSJ doesn't like Obama?

Shocking!

In other news, Obama is straight killing McCain on the Iraq war issue. He's going to own this territory the whole time. And why not? McCain is in opposition to 2/3rds of the country on the issue.

From the remarks prepped for his Montana rally tonite:

Quote:
"There are honest differences about how to move forward in Iraq, just like there were honest differences about whether or not we should go to war. John McCain was for the invasion of Iraq; I opposed it. John McCain wants to continue George Bush's war in Iraq indefinitely; I want to end it. So there's going to be a clear choice for the American people this November.

"But that's not what John McCain's been talking about the last few days. He's been proposing a joint trip to Iraq that's nothing more than a political stunt. He's even been using it to raise a few dollars for his campaign. But it seems like Senator McCain's a lot more interested in my travel plans than the facts, because yesterday - in his continued effort to put the best light on a failed policy - he stood up in Wisconsin and said, "We have drawn down to pre-surge levels" in Iraq.

"That's not true, and anyone running for Commander-in-Chief should know better. As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own view, but not your own facts. We've got around 150,000 troops in Iraq - 20,000 more than we had before the surge. We have plans to get down to around 140,000 later this summer - that's still more troops than we had in Iraq before the surge. And today, Senator McCain refused to correct his mistake. Just like George Bush, when he was presented with the truth, he just dug in and refused to admit his mistake. His campaign said it amounts to "nitpicking."

"Well I don't think tens of thousands of American troops amounts to nitpicking. Tell that to the young men and women who are serving bravely and brilliantly under our flag. Tell that to the families who have seen their loved ones fight tour after tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.

"It's time for a debate that's based on the truth, and I can't think of anything more important than how many Americans are in harm's way. It's time for a debate that's based on how we're going to end this war - not a debate that's based on raising a few dollars for John McCain's campaign.

"The American people have had enough spin. Just this week, we were reminded by President Bush's own former spokesman of how it was deception - not straight talk - that misled the American people into war. It's time to cut through the tough talk so that we can be straight with the American people about a war that's cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer. It's time to end the political game-playing so that we can finally end this war. That's what I'll do in this campaign. And that's what I'll do when I'm President of the United States."


When are you conservatives going to realize that so many disagree with McCain on this issue? That McCain will not win a debate about the war, by extension, you will not win the debate about the war? That he was wrong and you were wrong?

My guess is you dead-enders won't realize it until the elections when you are swept out of offices all over the country.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 04:38 pm
Excellent article Tico

Has no one brought up the fact that Obama's church is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Now Obama has to denounce the ugly comments of that nutty priest with an identity crisis --- Fluger? Flemer?

I'm not a big fan of guilt by association but at some point doesn't it make sense to inform one's opinion of a candidate for the presidency based on, if not any individual association than their aggregate?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 05:51 pm
Quote:
John McCain wants to continue George Bush's war in Iraq indefinitely;


This is a flat out lie and it will bite Obama in the ass later. People don't want another liar in office. They had the Clinton experience once.

I look forward to the next Obama gaffe. Shouldn't be long.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 07:29 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
John McCain wants to continue George Bush's war in Iraq indefinitely;


This is a flat out lie and it will bite Obama in the ass later. People don't want another liar in office. They had the Clinton experience once.

I look forward to the next Obama gaffe. Shouldn't be long.


Can you spell it out about "Clinton?" As I recall, it was about a personal sexual encounter. What else is there?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 08:15 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
John McCain wants to continue George Bush's war in Iraq indefinitely;


This is a flat out lie and it will bite Obama in the ass later. People don't want another liar in office. They had the Clinton experience once.

I look forward to the next Obama gaffe. Shouldn't be long.


Oh really?

McCain plans on staying 'as long as it takes.' What's the operational difference between that, and 'indefinitely?'

It is very literally true; Indefinitely perfectly describes McCain's position. There has been no definition of an end date by him.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 08:46 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
John McCain wants to continue George Bush's war in Iraq indefinitely;


This is a flat out lie and it will bite Obama in the ass later. People don't want another liar in office. They had the Clinton experience once.

I look forward to the next Obama gaffe. Shouldn't be long.


Oh really?

McCain plans on staying 'as long as it takes.' What's the operational difference between that, and 'indefinitely?'

It is very literally true; Indefinitely perfectly describes McCain's position. There has been no definition of an end date by him.

Cycloptichorn


Good Lord stop trying to shove your partisan sh*te into a package for regular consumption.

How tough is it to concieve that someone is not irrational for not wanting to declare to our enemy the date upon which we will withdraw our forces?

If you're all for someone who will do so, fine, but either accept that it's fair to judge your position as insane and defeatist or stop trying to cast the opposing position in the same dim light.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 08:50 pm
Not a Soccer Mom wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And that is where the debate should be.

And by golly, that's where it's gonna be. Because you're the one who decides where debates ought ot be. Smile


No I don't get to decide where debates ought to be. But I can see that the debate ought to be over real issues and definitions instead of made up ones.


All definitions are made up.

Cycloptichorn



Not only are they made up but everyone has his or her own interpretations and the meaning of words change as time goes on.

What Foxfyre just exposed in his statement is that he apparently sees things as black and white.


Very hot avatar...very facile comment, but please stay with us.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 09:03 pm
Hey, look Finn's going for that final 5% again.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 09:10 pm
kickycan wrote:
Hey, look Finn's going for that final 5% again.


kickycan "finn slayer."

I guess we all need something towards which to aspire.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 09:31 pm
Thomas wrote:
okie wrote:
It makes you blood run cold to conserve any value or principle, or to conserve resources, budgets, etc.?

Not the values of slavery, of women being disenfranchised and quasi-property of their husbands, of criminalizing interracial marriage, and of gay sex being a capital crime. All of these values were prominent in your founding fathers' moral universe. Conservatives have defended them against liberals trying to get rid of them. I'm glad they lost -- because these conservative values were oppressive, and I am a (classical) liberal.

okie wrote:
favor changing to liberality, no holds barred?

... except the equal liberty of everybody else. This qualification has been central to liberal thought since at least Thomas Jefferson. And with this qualification, yes, I prefer that.


As others have pointed out, as I already have as well, the current definitions of conservatism vary from historical definitions, etc. And it has already been pointed out that Lincoln was a Republican. I don't think true conservatism has ever advocated preserving everything, regardless of merit, and that would include slavery. Many of today's conservatives advocate radical change of the educational system, while liberals want to hold onto or conserve the currently failed system. That is one example. My conservatism believes in conserving moral values that are lasting and always appropriate in my opinion. It means standing up for and conserving what is right and honorable. If that happens to be different than what might be going on, then such a philosophy might require lots of changes, while at other times it might require resisting alot of change from what is right and proper.

My parents were always conservative, but never taught racism or advocated mistreatment of women.

I admit the terminology of conservative and liberal politics is somewhat tough to define if you try to apply it to all points in history in all places, but I believe the modern conservative in this country more closely adheres to the right principles than the liberal politics that we see.

One last comment, your reference to gay sex being a capital crime, my view of the correct conservatism would advocate staying out of peoples private lives, but eliminating it as a capital crime does not warrant the wisdom of society to place its stamp of approval on such behavior by legalizing marriage between members of the same sex. I think common sense, historically, requires that marriage be an institution reserved for the primary purpose of procreation and children being reared in a family atmosphere of mother and father. Government and society have a duty to encourage behaviors that have been proven to be beneficial to the healthy survival of that society. Similarly, common sense also dictates the logic to limit women from serving in combat, as historically the women needed to be protected to preserve the ability of the society to procreate and therefore have a better chance of survival. There is a difference between men and women, and to try to force them all into exact same roles is a violation of common sense and nature itself. Equal rights and equal roles are distinctly two different things, and as human beings we should be smart enough and honest enough to admit it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 09:58 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Not a Soccer Mom wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And that is where the debate should be.

And by golly, that's where it's gonna be. Because you're the one who decides where debates ought ot be. Smile


No I don't get to decide where debates ought to be. But I can see that the debate ought to be over real issues and definitions instead of made up ones.


All definitions are made up.

Cycloptichorn



Not only are they made up but everyone has his or her own interpretations and the meaning of words change as time goes on.

What Foxfyre just exposed in his statement is that he apparently sees things as black and white.


Very hot avatar...very facile comment, but please stay with us.


However, Rox is not only seemingly confused about her own gender, but mine as well. Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 10:00 pm
Seems McG doesn't keep up with the news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080531/pl_nm/usa_politics_iraq_dc
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 30 May, 2008 10:02 pm
My above post was in response to this post by McG.

McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
John McCain wants to continue George Bush's war in Iraq indefinitely;


This is a flat out lie and it will bite Obama in the ass later. People don't want another liar in office. They had the Clinton experience once.

I look forward to the next Obama gaffe. Shouldn't be long.


Who's the liar here?
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 887
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.23 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 12:39:43