The Democrats aspire to raspberries?
Really. It's not a vast right wing conspiracy, blatham.
sozobe wrote:This is interesting:
Quote:Still, most registered Republicans are not familiar with Giuliani's positions on key social issues: 34 percent of all Republican voters polled and 38 percent of social conservatives are aware he is pro-choice on abortion. And 51 percent of all Republican voters and 49 percent of social conservatives aren't sure where he stands on the issue. On gun control, just 17 percent of all Republican voters polled and 19 percent of social conservatives are aware he's a supporter of gun control. Sixty-seven percent of Republican voters polled (66% of social conservatives) aren't sure of his stand. And 16 percent of all Republican voters polled and 15 percent of social conservatives are aware that Giuliani opposes a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage; (70% overall and 72% of social conservatives aren't aware of his position).
I really think that the more people learn about him, the more that support will fall away.
Although I'm not sure who it would go to -- McCain? Romney?
Obama? :-D
The article does go on to say,
Quote:When asked about whether Giuliani's views on these same issues would be enough to prevent them from supporting him, few registered Republicans voters said it would. When told Giuliani supports Roe v. Wade, 29 percent of all Republican voters polled and 40 percent of social conservatives say it would make them less likely to support him. On Giuliani's opposition to an amendment that bans same-sex marriage, 25 percent of all Republican voters polled and 32 percent of social conservatives say that would make them less likely to support him. And on Giuliani's support of new laws requiring all gun owners in the U.S. to be licensed, 20 percent of all Republican voters polled and 22 percent of social conservatives say it would make them less likely to support him.
I'm not sure of the writer's use of "few" there, though. 40% of social conservatives said that Giuliani's support of Roe vs. Wade would make them less likely to support him! That seems sizeable to me.
This just goes to show that all republicans care about is whether or not they're in power. If Giuliani is the nominee you'll see people who disagree with him on some previously key issues IGNORE their conscience and vote for him because he's got an (R) next to his name on Fox news.
I'm sure that this happens on the Democrat side as well, but I can't think of any recent canidates who were completely opposite of their party on 3-5 of the most recent issues to come up in our country.
I think the only thing that would keep a republican from voting for him is if he came out and said he'd raise taxes.
Cyclo -- Made two shirts? T-shirts or tailored ones? Actually, I think T-shirts are more difficult: knit fabrics overwhelm me.
As to the assertion/what ever thing and keeping people honest: This is a place for opinion and I bet no one here is a journalist or policy-maker.
OCCOM BILL wrote: Conservatives must get wood when liberals start bashing religion. I can ill imagine a dumber strategy in a country where 80% of the citizens still believe in a higher power.
As for your babble about the internet being a place where it's not necessary to back assertions with evidence; look around the politics forum here and see what a ridiculous assertion that is.
First of all, what makes you think liberals bash religion. When you say liberals, what is understood is all liberals. So, no one who is liberal is religious.
Second, Do those alleged 80% (way too high a number) who believe in a higher power believe in nuclear power or ConEdison? Higher power? What if this planet is just a giant D&D (Dungeons and Dragons) game and the higher power is a group of players?
Third, this is a place where citizens -- as I said above, I doubt anyone here is a professional journalist (there were a couple of folks on abuzz who were journalists, but, I haven't seen them here in a long time) or a policy maker. This, little fellow, is a place for opinions.
nimh wrote:Yep, O'Bill, Soz is right of course. I'm talking about Lash asking GreenWitch for her opinion, and GW giving it, and Lash then going after her for not providing the links and evidence. Move the scene to a bar and ask yourself what you'd do.
Sounds like a massagatto post to me, although lash isn't the divine mr. m.
plainoldme wrote:Cyclo -- Made two shirts? T-shirts or tailored ones? Actually, I think T-shirts are more difficult: knit fabrics overwhelm me.
As to the assertion/what ever thing and keeping people honest: This is a place for opinion and I bet no one here is a journalist or policy-maker.
I was wondering when you'd post back!
Two fitted shirts - according to pattern - short sleeve w/rounded collars. The buttons didn't line up right on one of them, but the other one came out a-okay. Not bad for an afternoon's work. I was inspired by your posts, btw, so thanks.
As for the assertion/opinion thing - I agree with you in principle. The only question comes when we get into very complicated topics and subjects. It is difficult to carry on the framework of an argument over a large amount of time if you don't stick to relatively strict rules about backing up what you say, or saying clearly that it's just opinion. Nothing personal intended.
Cycloptichorn
Cyclo -- Have been very short of time lately. Congrats on the shirts and glad to hear I inspired someone.
I'm beginning to wonder how rampant assertions are in our society. It seems like everyone is accusing everyone else of having no basis in fact.
plainoldme wrote:Cyclo -- Have been very short of time lately. Congrats on the shirts and glad to hear I inspired someone.
I'm beginning to wonder how rampant assertions are in our society. It seems like everyone is accusing everyone else of having no basis in fact.
Assertions are not bad things!
They are good things! They save time and help the conversation move quickly.
But when someone asserts something which you believe to be untrue, there's nothing wrong with asking them if that's just their opinion, or if they have evidence to back it up.
Cycloptichorn
As long as you ask nicely!
plainoldme wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote: Conservatives must get wood when liberals start bashing religion. I can ill imagine a dumber strategy in a country where 80% of the citizens still believe in a higher power.
As for your babble about the internet being a place where it's not necessary to back assertions with evidence; look around the politics forum here and see what a ridiculous assertion that is.
First of all, what makes you think liberals bash religion. When you say liberals, what is understood is all liberals. So, no one who is liberal is religious.
On what demented moonscape is that a rule? So if I said baseball players take steroids; you'd assume I meant all baseball players?
plainoldme wrote:Second, Do those alleged 80% (way too high a number) who believe in a higher power believe in nuclear power or ConEdison? Higher power? What if this planet is just a giant D&D (Dungeons and Dragons) game and the higher power is a group of players?
Don't know, don't care. Religion isn't my thing. The FACT remains; the majority of Americans believe in a higher power and when they're insulted for it, they don't like it. When liberals bash religion; they shoot their own preferred candidates in the foot. Religion is generally non-negotiable to the faithful, so he who represents that "value" has a better shot at winning higher office. Conservatives play this card to their advantage regularly, yet liberals tend to never learn their lesson about insulting the majority. Hence, I find it amusing.
plainoldme wrote:Third, this is a place where citizens -- as I said above, I doubt anyone here is a professional journalist (there were a couple of folks on abuzz who were journalists, but, I haven't seen them here in a long time) or a policy maker. This, little fellow, is a place for opinions.
Little fellow?
Of course it's a place for opinions, but opinions not based in fact are as useless here as they are anywhere else... so it's quite customary to provide proof for your assertions if challenged. I don't know why you'd assume no one here is a journalist or policy maker, nor why you think that makes a lick of difference. Take Nimh for instance; here is a very opinionated man, who generally backs his assertions with facts and is so reliable I generally feel no need to dig further for verification. Few news outlets have as much credibility and fewer politicians.
If you prefer to just babble away without regard for facts or etiquette; knock yourself out... you're hardly alone in that practice. But stop short of suggesting that this isn't a place for facts or that substantiating questionable assertions isn't the norm. I learn a great deal here, and that wouldn't be possible if A2K's membership didn't include a lot of people who habitually, reciprocally demonstrate sufficient etiquette to source their assertions. Were that not the case I doubt I'd be a member.
OCCOM BILL wrote:plainoldme wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote: Conservatives must get wood when liberals start bashing religion. I can ill imagine a dumber strategy in a country where 80% of the citizens still believe in a higher power.
As for your babble about the internet being a place where it's not necessary to back assertions with evidence; look around the politics forum here and see what a ridiculous assertion that is.
First of all, what makes you think liberals bash religion. When you say liberals, what is understood is all liberals. So, no one who is liberal is religious.
On what demented moonscape is that a rule? So if I said baseball players take steroids; you'd assume I meant all baseball players?
.
Obviously written by someone who never participated formally in debate nor passed a college level writing class.
Firefighters Urge "Peeling Of Giuliani's 9/11 Onion"
Spokesman for largest Firefighters' union speaks out
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, March 12, 2007
The press secretary of the biggest firefighters' union, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) has today shed more light on the furor surrounding last week's press coverage of Giuliani's snubbing of the firefighters invitation to an upcoming presidential candidate forum.
Alex Jones was joined on air today by IAFF's Jeff Zack, who revealed in no uncertain terms that the image of Giuliani as some sort of a 9/11 hero could not be further from the truth as far as the firefighters of New York are concerned.
Last week the AP reported:
After Giuliani pulled out of a planned appearance at an International Association of Firefighters presidential forum next week, the group released a stinging draft letter indicating that it almost didn't invite him at all because of continuing anger at his "despicable" role in pulling firefighters off the Twin Towers' debris pile in 2001 before all hope of finding their dead comrades' remains was exhausted.
"The disrespect that he exhibited to our 343 fallen FDNY brothers, their families, and our New York leadership in the wake of that tragic day has not been forgiven or forgotten," said the three-page letter, drafted by union leaders in late February and first disclosed on Newsday's Web site Thursday.
A CNN report covers this in more depth here.
Mr Zack explained on the Alex Jones show that the initial decision from those debating the issue from New York City and from the national office was that Rudy Giuliani shouldn't be invited. Zack explained that this was:
"Because of the egregious way he treated our fallen and those attempting to pursue a dignified recovery of the citizens and firefighters that lost their lives that horrific day. In making that decision a discussion ensued about, well, how are we going to communicate to our membership that we're not Inviting Rudy because, you know, he would be the only person that was not invited, every other major candidate was invited from the Republican party and the Democratic party. So we drafted a letter to let people know of exactly the circumstances that were discussed and why Rudy didn't deserve an invitation."
Before there was a final decision another discussion ensued and it was finally decided that Giuliani should be given a platform regardless, so he did get invited, confirmed his appearance last Monday and then two days later changed his mind and canceled. The firefighters' union, feeling somewhat snubbed, decided to release their previous draft letter anyway in order to give more clarity to the situation.
Mr Zack went on to explain exactly why the firefighters hold Giuliani in such low esteem:
"There were a number of issues over which our firefighters had severe disagreements with the mayor prior to September 11th, and then his actions following that horrific day where he made the decision to pull firefighters off the pile from searching for citizens and firefighters that lost their lives, and he went to a full what we call 'scoop and dump', where he was just taking all what he determined was trash, putting it on a barge and sending it to Fresh Kills landfill. Well that what he called trash contained the remains of thousands of citizens, hundreds of firefighters, and we felt that the families of those people deserved some sort of closure and some sort of dignified recovery process because they were innocent victims."
To this day the remains of hundreds of innocent victims of the September 11 attacks are still sickeningly buried in the world's largest rubbish dump, on Staten Island, where it has been decalred by New York officials that they will stay for ever. Officials, citing financial constraints, have refused to make any concessions and wish to leave those victims to rot in the ground with acres of stinking trash.
Giuliani's official reasoning for this was that he was acting in the interest of safety. The IAFF believes this to be totally false, Jeff Zack commented:
"For him to determine that it was unsafe, OK this actually was the most unstable unsafe destruction area in the history of the Untied States. but for Rudy Giuliani to all of a sudden become concerned, six weeks after the initial accident where hundreds and thousands of people had been coming through and working on that pile for weeks and weeks, all of a sudden he became concerned about the safety of people on that pile? That's disingenuous."
Zack then reiterated the real reason behind Giuliani's action:
"The real reason was that the Bank of Nova Scotia's assets were buried in that rubble, the day they got those assets out of that pile, Rudy shut the pile down, said 'everybody off, we're going to full scoop and dump'... It was gold, it was silver, it was other assets, I've seen a lot of numbers too, I don't have an exact one so I don't wanna give it to you... Our firefighters were on the pile helping excavate the gold as well, our problem is that all Rudy cared about at the end of the day was the gold bricks, not the lives and the memories of those that were the true heroes that day."
At the time, in November 2001, it was reported that $200 million in gold bullion has been recovered from the site. One day later around 50% of firefighters were removed from the job and totally denied access.
Many declared they were being disrespected, that the city was more concerned with gold than people. Others said the city wanted to speed up the removal of debris to save money.
'We're on a mission, and we won't leave until it's done,' insisted fireman Chuck Horack. 'We see the site as sacred ground. Our brothers are still in the debris. No one can ever know how important it is to bring their husband home to a widow.' Mayor Giuliani launched a bizarre and savage attack on the firemen, saying their actions were 'sinful'. 'They have absolutely no monopoly in caring about the people there,' he said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
plainoldme wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:plainoldme wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote: Conservatives must get wood when liberals start bashing religion. I can ill imagine a dumber strategy in a country where 80% of the citizens still believe in a higher power.
As for your babble about the internet being a place where it's not necessary to back assertions with evidence; look around the politics forum here and see what a ridiculous assertion that is.
First of all, what makes you think liberals bash religion. When you say liberals, what is understood is all liberals. So, no one who is liberal is religious.
On what demented moonscape is that a rule? So if I said baseball players take steroids; you'd assume I meant all baseball players?
.
Obviously written by someone who never participated formally in debate nor passed a college level writing class.
Obvious to like-minded fools perhaps... but not to anyone with a rational mind. Ad hominem is a sorry substitute for debateĀ
but is the common fallback point when other distractions fail in crumbling arguments delivered by mediocre minds.
Steve Watson wrote:OK this actually was the most unstable unsafe destruction area in the history of the Untied States.
Next google "post 911 sickness" and see if there might be a reason to call off the search beyond being Satan incarnate. Clearly; it is the Left who is in a panic over Giuliani's big lead, not the Right.
I read an article yesterday about how youtube is likely to have a big affect on the elections. Giuliani was used as one example as some old, and not so old clips have resurfaced that show him speaking in favor of abortion. In recent times (with the election in mind, no doubt) he seems to have made a remarkable shift in his views :wink: . What a surprise!
Yup. "Strict constructionists" <wink wink>
OCCOM BILL wrote:see if there might be a reason to call off the search beyond being Satan incarnate. Clearly; it is the Left who is in a panic over Giuliani's big lead, not the Right.
I'd go for this argument if the firemen had turned their objections on and off and back on again, but they didn't. They've been objecting for over 5 years. It only disappeared if you lost interest in 9-11 and Giuliani. Those most impacted didn't.
ehBeth wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:see if there might be a reason to call off the search beyond being Satan incarnate. Clearly; it is the Left who is in a panic over Giuliani's big lead, not the Right.
I'd go for this argument if the firemen had turned their objections on and off and back on again, but they didn't. They've been objecting for over 5 years. It only disappeared if you lost interest in 9-11 and Giuliani. Those most impacted didn't.
I have no doubt the Fireman were and are upset about the decision, nor do I find their complaints anything but reasonable. I wouldn't fault the families of MIA/POW's who disappeared in SE Asia for demanding more be done to retrieve their loved ones, either, no matter what other considerations apply. The emotional charge here is nothing if not understandable. But how much is enough? Would you expect the Firefighters to have reacted any differently if the plug was pulled a month later? 2 months? Are grudges not still being held over those still missing in SE Asia decades later? If it's your family member, or your fellow Firefighter; I don't think you would be well positioned to make the pragmatic decisions that need to be made for the sake of ongoing health risks and closure. I have little doubt that the complaintants themselves are sincere and less still that their legitimate complaints will now be exploited for political purposes. This would happen exactly the same way if Giuliani were a Democratic contender; save the combatants would switch sides. At the end of the day; it is just one more way to exploit the tragedy of 911 for political gain.
occom -- Had you never used an ad hominem argument, you might have had the right to condemn others. Logic and consistency are not your strengths.
