Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 389101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 385
  1. #241  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Why do you think mccain is the best candidate?

    I have great concerns over his "summer holiday from gas tax" plan he released recently (would cost 10 billion).

    I like some of mccains ideas and plans, although, I think I'll wait to see exactly what he brings to the table. If his ideals amount to the "summer holiday gas tax" then I fear it will be nothing more than 4 years of putting band aids on problems and we won't get anyplace fast. The band aid fixes are running out of steam....
    You assume a lot with that statement - I said he'd win big, not that he's the best candidate (although he IS the best candidate still in this race, if that's what you mean).

    I love when people refer to tax cuts as 'costs'. Costs who? The federal gov't.? I think of tax cuts as savings, for the taxPAYERS. Those same people that bemoan the 'costs' of a tax cut are never heard complaining about the costs to the taxpayers when taxes are raised. Funny... And then to be accused of being 'greedy' for wanting to keep more of the money they earn, as if the federal gov't. knows how to spend their money better than they do.

    I agree that no one, not the Democrats nor the Republicans, have done much good, and in fact have done many things to hurt the long term health of our economy, over the last 20 years. Spending is out of control, and the Republicans are just as guilty as any Democrat has ever been. Pols of both parties want to stay in power, and the way to do that is to spend other peoples money, promising constituents whatever it takes, to get re-elected. When tax rates are cut, however, the benefit to the economy is almost immediate and across the board. We need to maintain our low rate of taxation, not raise it. Especially at this point in time, with a slowdown under way. (Refer to the Great Depression.)
  2. #242  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    No, a fact by definition is indisputable (although what is disputable is by what criteria is something judged to be a fact). But even when facts are agreed upon, the choosing what facts to discuss and what facts to ignore, certainly involves an element of bias, and we should of course realize that.
    So the basis of your claim - that "you can never completely avoid inserting bias" - is your belief that any decision on the relevance of a fact must be biased. I think you're way over-generalizing here. Surely you'd acknowledge that there are cases where everyone would agree on what facts are relevant to discuss.

    Anyway, please give an example of a recent discussion where relevant facts are not being discussed. I'm sure the participants would appreciate your guidance.
  3. #243  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    So the basis of your claim - that "you can never completely avoid inserting bias" - is your belief that any decision on the relevance of a fact must be biased. I think you're way over-generalizing here. Surely you'd acknowledge that there are cases where everyone would agree on what facts are relevant to discuss.
    I am not making the claim that every statement must have bias, but I am saying that one is deluded to think they can be bias free all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Anyway, please give an example of a recent discussion where relevant facts are not being discussed. I'm sure the participants would appreciate your guidance.
    Trying steer me into a conflict? Sorry, i like the people here, and you too actually. I originally made my comment because I wanted to pay Bayre a compliment, not to create a conflict.
    Last edited by electronique; 04/23/2008 at 05:00 PM.
  4. #244  
    Quote Originally Posted by kgilbertsen View Post
    You assume a lot with that statement - I said he'd win big, not that he's the best candidate (although he IS the best candidate still in this race, if that's what you mean).
    Obviously, if someone states that something is going to "win" then it must be "better" than something else. How you calculate or don't calculate that is up to you. There are many ways to get to why you would believe that mccain is better than the other candidates...

    If you want to get stuck on words, then there is nothing else left for us to discuss.



    I love when people refer to tax cuts as 'costs'. Costs who? The federal gov't.? I think of tax cuts as savings, for the taxPAYERS. Those same people that bemoan the 'costs' of a tax cut are never heard complaining about the costs to the taxpayers when taxes are raised. Funny... And then to be accused of being 'greedy' for wanting to keep more of the money they earn, as if the federal gov't. knows how to spend their money better than they do.
    You don't understand the plan mccain was putting into play.... yes, it does cost since the roads will still have to be fixed after the "summer of love" has ended. Read about it... see how the money was to be shuffled around....

    But again, getting stuck on words instead of the real issue....

    It was a simple question: Why do you think mccain is the best candidate? Thinking about, don't answer.... it is OT anyway....
    Last edited by theog; 04/23/2008 at 04:48 PM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  5. #245  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    No you are slightly inventing your own basis to my claim, perhaps through your own misinterpretation. I am not making the claim that every statement must have bias, but I am saying that one is deluded to think they can be bias free all the time.
    I disagreed with your claim that "you can never completely avoid inserting bias" because you can sometimes completely avoid inserting bias. I think you phrased it poorly.


    My original purpose here was to compliment Barye on his honesty, and I decline your offer to help me get into conflict with some participant (or even you).
    In so doing, you repeatedly attacked the integrity of "many people" in this forum, but you won't back up your claim. I think you owe these people an apology.

    You're like someone who claims that a politician lies all the time, but can't come up with a single example.
  6.    #246  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Barye, I gotta hand it to you. You consistently take every opportunity (especially when there is none) to spin any comment (even when it is not remotely related to Rep) into to soap box Rep Bashing montages.


    Hobbes -- things must have gotten pretty bad, if not even you would dispute that junior is the worst american President in its history...

    If I'm ascribing unfairly your sentiment -- perhaps I should start a thread titled: "Worst President in america's history: " where we can find (kinda like american idol) who best deserves to wear that exalted crown.


    psssst...BTW....I think the poll in your signature is so old that the link is no longer valid. It appears that Rueters doesn't have the article anymore.
    indeed -- but its no less true now...

    Perhaps I should replace it with an ongoing report on BARYE's continuing efforts to peacefully regain the Louisana "purchase" territories that he was swindled out of ...
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/23/2008 at 09:54 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #247  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I disagreed with your claim that "you can never completely avoid inserting bias" because you can sometimes completely avoid inserting bias. I think you phrased it poorly.
    Maybe I did. I appreciate your patience with my poor phrasing.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    In so doing, you repeatedly attacked the integrity of "many people" in this forum, but you won't back up your claim. I think you owe these people an apology.
    In complementing Bayre and letting everyone know (myslef included) that we are all biased whether we admit it or not you evidently feel I attacked "many people" on this forum. So who are "these people" I am supposedly attacking? Everyone except Bayre?
  8. #248  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    Maybe I did. I appreciate your patience with my poor phrasing.
    No problem.

    In complementing Bayre and letting everyone know (myslef included) that we are all biased whether we admit it or not you evidently feel I attacked "many people" on this forum. So who are "these people" I am supposedly attacking? Everyone except Bayre?
    Er, no. You said:
    too many people around this forum pretend they are not biased but what they choose to address or ignore makes their true political agenda obvious.
    I think there are many who know they are biased, but feign objectivity as a tactic to achieve their political agenda.
    As far as who you're attacking, you obviously want to keep it a secret since the accusation was baseless.
  9. #249  
    Still trying to parlay my broad statement into a personal attack?
  10. #250  
    I don't think John McCain is the best person for the job, there were better options in this race. But he is, in my opinion, the best choice still in the game.
    I thought Hillary would win big in Pennsylvania, but that doesn't mean I thought she was the better choice - it comes down to demographics. She has polled better with the majority of Pennsylvania's voter blocs. Plus there were a large number of Republicans who crossed over and voted for her. So that shows that the below statement doesn't hold up, at least in this example.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Obviously, if someone states that something is going to "win" then it must be "better" than something else.

    If you want to get stuck on words, then there is nothing else left for us to discuss.

    You don't understand the plan mccain was putting into play.... yes, it does cost since the roads will still have to be fixed after the "summer of love" has ended. Read about it... see how the money was to be shuffled around....

    But again, getting stuck on words instead of the real issue....

    It was a simple question: Why do you think mccain is the best candidate? Thinking about, don't answer.... it is OT anyway....
    Well, it may or may not be off topic, which is 'What happened to Hillary?'. The more people learn about each candidate, the better informed decision they can make. We always learn more the further we get into the campaign season, as the candidates all have to come off of their 'scripts'. When candidates are 'attacked' they have to respond, which is a good thing for the voters because we learn more about that candidate from their responses.

    Hillary has always had very high negatives, and that hasn't changed. It's a result of her stand on issues, and her personality, as it is for every candidate. Barack has been getting along on his personality for a long time, and only recently has been forced to come off his scripted answers. Now that people are getting a better idea on where he stands on the issues, and seeing him answer questions off the cuff, he's not doing as well. He got beat pretty handily yesterday.
    McCain only got about 72% of the Republican vote yesterday, not so good when you're the apparent nominee. He's got a lot of work to do in his own party, let alone going after Independents. But his positions on issues and his personality are what I think will win it for him in the fall.
    I think his position on the war, on taxes, on health care, his position on abortion, and how he views the Constitution and probable Supreme Court justice nominations are positives. Probably different than your views on these same issues, but that's what makes this country so great - we can all disagree and, whatever the outcome of the election, we manage to work through it. Heck, we survived 8 years of Bill Clinton, didn't we?
  11. #251  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    Still trying to parlay my broad statement into a personal attack?
    There was nothing personal about your baseless attack. It was broad.
  12. #252  
    Quote Originally Posted by kgilbertsen View Post
    I don't think John McCain is the best person for the job, there were better options in this race. But he is, in my opinion, the best choice still in the game.
    I agree... even on dems I don't think these two were the best choices...


    I thought Hillary would win big in Pennsylvania, but that doesn't mean I thought she was the better choice - it comes down to demographics. She has polled better with the majority of Pennsylvania's voter blocs. Plus there were a large number of Republicans who crossed over and voted for her. So that shows that the below statement doesn't hold up, at least in this example.
    We are on the same page, but explaining it differently. I agree with what you said above... and understand why you might not understand my statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by kgilbertsen
    ****snip******
    Glad you decided to respond.... Nice read.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  13. #253  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    thanks electronique !!
    you are welcome Barye, sorry to have misspelled you name earlier.
  14. #254  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    There was nothing personal about your baseless attack.
    thanks for not taking it personally.
  15. #255  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    thanks for not taking it personally.
    You and I think very differently. The problem with your attack was that it was not supported by any facts. Facts are good. Dishonest claims are bad.
  16. #256  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post




    Hobbes -- things must have gotten pretty bad, if not even you would dispute that junior is the worst american President in its history...

    If I'm ascribing unfairly your sentiment -- perhaps I should start a thread titled: "Worst President in america's history: " where we can find (kinda like american idol) who best deserves to wear that exalted crown.
    I don't have a problem at all with the view you hold and share....I often times disagree with it, sometimes agree with it, and sometimes we meet in the middle. As I have said before you are consistent, and respect you for that. I like the way you usually listen to the other side and offer a reason why you feel the way you do. Several times in the past we have both recognized the arguments of the other and have moved towards a consensus.

    I was only commenting on the spinning of any comment into a Rep bashing montage, not complaining about your opinion of the Rep or Bush. It is like someone can make a comment on how they liked their ham and cheese sandwich they had for lunch that day and you would end up ranting with how Bush is directly responsible for how the banks have been issuing house loans for the past 28 years.

    It is not sharing your opinion, it is not what your opinion is, it is just spinning EVERYTHING into a bashing opportunity.


    But, sure, to answer your question......I do have beef to pick with Bush as I have freely shared several times over in this forum I think he has utterly failed in homeland security issues, i.e. mainly Illegal Immigration and Border Security. Going into Iraq had nearly unanimous support at the time from the Rep and nearly every notable ranking Dem, including Bill and Hillary. The voting record and Senate and Congressional Speeches on record show the wide spread support at the time. We had no confirmation about Iran's Secret Nuke program until months after Iraq invasion. So that is not an issue with me. But the management after the initial goals in Iraq raise several well deserved and earned concerns.

    I voted for Bush last time, not because of any major support for him but I felt a better choice given the alternative. If Lieberman had been on the Dem ticket I would have voted Dem last time for sure.

    According to several historians, Bush is certainly in the lower tiers of the rankings with all the Presidents in history. But most of the studies I have seen on this say that this cannot be finalized until years after for two reasons. First is that current events are always fresh in mind. Historically Pres approval ratings will improve as years goes by and new issues become current. And second it the full impact of their actions is not able to be realized often times until years later, i.e. in 15 or 50 years is the Middle East better or worse then with a democratic Iraq.

    In addition to the concerns I expressed above about Bush, here are some of my worst Presidents on my list:
    • James Buchanan who set the stage for the Civil War and handed Lincoln a country torn apart.
    • Warren G. Harding & Calvin Coolidge who had the most documented corrupt administrations in our history.
    • Herbert Hoover is certainly a candidate from the way he managing the economy prior the crash in the 20s that lead to the Great Depression.
    • I think Andrew Johnson for being a white racist that resisted every turn in allowing blacks to vote in a time following Lincoln and the Civil War when it could have changed the course and climate of our country's future.
    • Carter as on the most ineffective in recent history.
    • Nixon for the disgrace on our country for the situation that forced him to resign
    • I would not put Bill Clinton in the worst Pres list but I feel he had a major admin blunder that deserves to be on the list. I think that his slashing of our Military and Intel forces has lead to many of the challenges we face now with being able to react to all current and potential threats at a comfortable level of resources.



    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    indeed -- but its no less true now...
    That is the point. A lot of things have changed since that poll was taken over 4 years ago. The Iraq people are not stupid, many of the latest polls that I have seen show that they now realize that if we just pulled out, they will be in a major heap of trouble.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/24/2008 at 07:57 PM.
  17. #257  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You and I think very differently. The problem with your attack was that it was not supported by any facts. Facts are good. Dishonest claims are bad.
    Samkim, I would not take your line of thinking. I give you an example of how your line of thinking might look not coming from you, but coming at you:

    first take an undocumentable statement such as:

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    the problem with inserting one's bias is that it often leads to mindless cheerleading
    twist the meaning:
    "how can you say people who admit bias are often mindless?"

    try to ferment conflict:
    "by the way who are you attacking on this forum with this baseless claim?

    then accuse and convict:
    Dont want to say? well it just shows you are dishonest."

    But why do you go thru it? It makes me wonder. Even though you say its not personal, it makes me suspicious that maybe it is personal for you. If so, please accept my apologies.

    Nonetheless, I stand by what I said before, even though it is certainly not easily documented, that I suspect that when it comes to politics, an appearace of objectivity often hides an underlying bias. Those like Barye who try to transcend this are refreshing to talk to.
  18. #258  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    [*]I would not put Bill Clinton ... I think that his slashing of our Military and Intel forces has lead to many of the challenges we face now with being able to react to all current and potential threats at a comfortable level of resources.
    I definitely disagree.

    I was in the military during the clinton reductions. If anything those reductions helped the military.

    I'd guess the Bush military base closings were a good thing for the military?

    I hear this argument against clinton, but the fact was we had a bunch of navy ships that were beyond their life expectancy. I know, I was on one... it killed a good friend of mine (rusty steam pipe). Of course, retiring the old ships allowed for us to build new ships... yada, yada.... old arguments, you get the picture.

    Anyway, the base closures were more of a joke. In the navy at least, we closed old bases, but in most cases, the bases really moved to another location.... it was really a joke.

    Yes, there were some reductions in force, but that was also good. There is nothing worse than being in a job and you can't advance... when you have redundant jobs, it is very hard to advance... that is what we had.

    If clinton's reductions were so bad, then bush would not have further reduced the military bases....

    Bottom line is during that time we had a changing world. Clinton was not an *****, and neither were his advisors. They knew things were changing and there would be a different way to fight a new enemy.

    Of course you debate this all day long... some will say clinton went way too far. Specifically in the spy community, there are thoughts that he went too far... I can't call that.

    I do know that america had to rebuild the military... things like that take time. You don't snap your fingers and everything is perfect. When Tiger Woods "improved his golf swing" many years ago... he was terrible during the process and some said he was finished... it took him over a year, but at the end it worked out.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  19. #259  
    I do not have any problems at all retiring old ships, realigning or closing bases that are not as vital anymore, etc... Though I think he closed something like 80 or 100 of them. This often times needs to be done and probably should have been down well before Clinton did it. But there wasn't much of a plan to at least eventually replace those resources, such as decommissioned ships.

    I bullet pointed my thought, so I should clarify that I my concerns is mostly when he reduced the manpower resources to each arm of the Military, the Intelligence Community, and the Pentagon, etc... And scrapped many projects that would have or may still prove useful in the time to come like the Strategic Defense Initiative.
  20. #260  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    Nonetheless, I stand by what I said before, even though it is certainly not easily documented, that I suspect that when it comes to politics, an appearace of objectivity often hides an underlying bias. Those like Barye who try to transcend this are refreshing to talk to.
    Just as an FYI, the above phrasing is much less confrontational than your original, and had you used it, things probably wouldn't have been as likely to get diverted. That being said, your statement can still be seen as accusatory and a personal attack.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions