Vetting the GOP VP Nominee Online, in Realtime - Page 9 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 09-24-2008, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Cyn since as you say "Palin made a decision" don't we also have the right to say we feel her decision was wrong and criticize her on it? That is the crux of the issue. Palin said no to rape kits either because she thought they cost to much (unlikely in my mind), she didn't like the fact that they come with plan B (likely in my mind), or some other reason. Many of feel this was a very bad decision on her part and feel it goes to her character and leadership abilities. We have every right to say we think she was wrong.

Never once did I say that wasn't a possibility. In fact in light of that, it's just as jorgelito said, bash Palin.

I said, that notwithstanding the choice made, the reality is there, what is the next step?

rb, that's fine, you can think of it as being as ass. I don't. I look at a $20M budget variance every month and have to see what things need to be looked at as best as possible making sure we don't spend more than we need to on any single line items. If there are increases, the question is why are there increases? Can those increases be mitigated in some fashion. If there are problems the question becomes why are the problems happening? What can be done? Where will the funds come from to continue operations?

But again, you'd rather say I'm being an ass instead of seeing my point of view and where I'm coming from. I've leaned over and bent over backwards to understand each and everyone's points. Few have done the same. Good way to have discussions.

roachboy · 09-24-2008, 07:53 AM

and you only read the last sentence or two of my post.

you act as though the state was some voluntary association that meets around the woodstove in order to decide whether we should have a fire department this week or whether we care this week about women who are raped enough to not take care of a couple telephone poles or deal with a neighbor's chipmunk problem. and as if the pool of resources that a state works with is the quarters that we all throw into a spitoon or some such.

there's nothing about that which enables a discussion: you set it up so that you either agree with your premise and then there "is a discussion" or you don't, in which case "you have poor communication skills"

there is a broader question that you could ask, which has to do with whether it makes sense to import micro-level understanding to thinking about how a state allocates resources---but you'd have to want to have a discussion about that. and you don't---you assume your way of posing the question is coherent.

Cynthetiq · 09-24-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

and you only read the last sentence or two of my post.

you act as though the state was some voluntary association that meets around the woodstove in order to decide whether we should have a fire department this week or whether we care this week about women who are raped enough to not take care of a couple telephone poles or deal with a neighbor's chipmunk problem. and as if the pool of resources that a state works with is the quarters that we all throw into a spitoon or some such.

there's nothing about that which enables a discussion: you set it up so that you either agree with your premise and then there "is a discussion" or you don't, in which case "you have poor communication skills"

there is a broader question that you could ask, which has to do with whether it makes sense to import micro-level understanding to thinking about how a state allocates resources---but you'd have to want to have a discussion about that. and you don't---you assume your way of posing the question is coherent.

not at all. i've asked a simple question, no one said to expand it, mold it, move it to a different level. to address it and say it needs to be more complex, that's called discussion. to say, "i reject it." is petty and doesn't further discussion.

I've been asking to engage in discussion as to a better understanding, but again, "i reject it." is the response. So furthering my understanding is nil.

good way to discuss and impart more information.

roachboy · 09-24-2008, 08:38 AM

so there's no expectation in your world that logic is of any consequence and no reason to assume that if your logic is a mess then you might not get the responses you find to be interesting or helpful?
and if there is a logic problem with a given argument, the problem lay not with the author of the post, but with the people who point out that there's a logic problem?
is that how things work for you?

this is not a game i am at all interested in playing.

Cynthetiq · 09-24-2008, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so there's no expectation in your world that logic is of any consequence and no reason to assume that if your logic is a mess then you might not get the responses you find to be interesting or helpful?
and if there is a logic problem with a given argument, the problem lay not with the author of the post, but with the people who point out that there's a logic problem?
is that how things work for you?

this is not a game i am at all interested in playing.

no, I've not said that either. Again, reading too much into the words that are typed here. I've not said, I'm not to blame for anything, nor have I said, someone else should be blamed. I've stated nothing further than one of the first discussions I recall with you, about people talking past each other. Which is what I find mostly here in the politics threads, if you don't agree with someone, you talk past them and there, you don't have to engage in any meaningful discussion. "Pat yourself on the back because you're #1 and that other guy just doesn't get it." Never advocated anything of the sort.

this has been a wonderful waste of time, just as effective as a facebook game. I come back and check every few minutes to see what's changed, type a few things, click a button or two, and then come back again. Wheee!

You're right it isn't fun playing.

jewels · 09-24-2008, 08:56 AM

roachboy · 09-24-2008, 09:00 AM

here's my last comment: the discussion that has now ground to a halt had any number of possibilities in terms of movement, how and in which direction it could happen. you chose not to take the rest of us up on the questions that were raised about your argument. that was *your* choice, and much of the discussion has, in fact, been shaped by *your* choice and reactions to *your* choices. *you* chose not to reconsider your position, *you* chose to push this thread in the direction it's gone.

buck up, comrade. this is not such a big deal.

Cynthetiq · 09-24-2008, 09:03 AM

right, it's my fault to ask where the monies for something should come from. SHOCKING! SHOCKING! I say.

that's retarded rb. simply retarded to say that there's no logic to that question, that there's no logic to positing it in any form. that's utter bullshit.

so sorry to disrupt you socialists and your advocation of free social programs where no one pays for anything and everyone owns everything.

i'll leave so you guys can just kumbaya yourselves back to sleepy dreams.

jewels · 09-24-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

*you* chose not to reconsider your position, *you* chose to push this thread in the direction it's gone.

buck up, comrade. this is not such a big deal.

RB, sounds like this has become personal, maybe?

Since this isn't a private correspondence and I was one who did choose to reconsider my initial position (which had been the same as yours) after reading the responses and now understand where Cyth's coming from, why would you accuse him of not reconsidering his position when you still haven't even reconsidered yours?

He asked a question, we all came at him with our positions. Why should he back down from a valid question? WHen I asked the same question (not framed in a rapekit), why was it discounted?

filtherton · 09-24-2008, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

see again, shortsighted. I didn't limit it to RAPEKITS. but you read what you want and then interepret it as you see fit without the rest of the words surround it.

You want to know who pays for things. That's it, right? The problem is that you've manage to take a possibly interesting question and brought it up in a context that not only renders it completely uninteresting, but managed to do so in a way that makes you look like you think that a significant portion of rape kits are wasted on liars.

I understand what you're saying, I just fail to see why you find it even remotely interesting in this context. You want to know who is going to pay for it and our collective response is "it should be the police department, because that is their role." It isn't that difficult. You're asking a question as if the majority of people don't already have an answer for it, and then you're acting like it's somehow insightful.

Clearly, when times are tough, tough financial decisions need to be made. Were times tough when Palin was mayor of Wasilla? I think a brand new sports complex would say no. So what's your point? That tough times in general call for tough financial decisions? Does anyone disagree with that?

I also understand that you said something that made it seem like you felt that there were enough instances of false rape accusations that perhaps rape victims should have to pay for their rape kits.

I think you said something ill-advised and now are so desperately trying to make this discussion about something else entirely. i.e. "It's not that I think that a lot of rape victims are liars, it's that I'm innocently curious about the mundane financial decision making processes of local government." Whatever.

This "fiscal responsibility" tack is bullshit. You aren't the only one who is aware of the fact that money is exchanged for goods and service. It's not a very revelatory point. That you seem to think it is beyond anyone here is silly.

Quote:

I get it. You, rb, and dc aren't interested in how the fiscal operations work. It's just a GIVEN that it should be collected and spent.

Nope. You actually don't get it, and you actually seem to be very good at not getting it. It's that questions of the inner working of fiscal operations is unimportant in the context of anything anyone in here is saying, with the exception of you.

Quote:

right, they don't adhere to ANY accounting philosophies or responsibility, which is why the feds have huge deficit spending, state and local governments have shortfalls to FY09 budgets calling for further expenditure cutss, personal credit has topped out, home equity was used as an ATM, am I missing something where money hasn't been squeezed out?

but I've been saying all this time,"someone needs to pay for the rapekits... it's raaaape... rapekits... need to pay for them!"

More tangents?

kutulu · 09-24-2008, 09:47 AM

I don't know why you guys are still playing with this subtopic. It isn't like he's going to admit he's wrong about his assessment of the situation (despite overwhelming evidence). All you will get is self gratifying bs about how he understands fiscal responsibility and nobody else does.

Rekna · 09-24-2008, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

right, it's my fault to ask where the monies for something should come from. SHOCKING! SHOCKING! I say.

that's retarded rb. simply retarded to say that there's no logic to that question, that there's no logic to positing it in any form. that's utter bullshit.

so sorry to disrupt you socialists and your advocation of free social programs where no one pays for anything and everyone owns everything.

i'll leave so you guys can just kumbaya yourselves back to sleepy dreams.

Cyn we have said over and over the government should pay for it. You have created a false dilemma that there isn't money for rape kits. Where does the money for all the other services the government provides come from? Those roads, those bailouts, those student loans, welfare, social security, police, fire, boarder patrol, military, congress, president, governors, food stamps, crime investigation, medicare, research grants, federal buildings, IRS, national parks, coast guard, air force, .... i could continue but you get the point. Hell Alaska pays their population over $1000 a year just for living there, why not take some out of that....

The_Dunedan · 09-24-2008, 05:56 PM

Oh, and about that infamous bridge...

Biden, Obama helped keep 'Bridge to Nowhere' alive - CNN.com

Quote:

DEWEY BEACH, Delaware (CNN) -- Although Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden routinely mocks his Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, for her onetime support of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," Biden and his running mate voted to keep the project alive twice. Both Biden and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted to kill a Senate amendment that would have diverted federal funding for the bridge to repair a Louisiana span badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina, Senate records show.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, it seems.

dc_dux · 09-24-2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Oh, and about that infamous bridge...

Biden, Obama helped keep 'Bridge to Nowhere' alive - CNN.com

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, it seems.

nevermind....wrong thread!

The_Dunedan · 09-24-2008, 06:04 PM

Mostly because this is the Palin-vetting thread, which deals with issues surrounding Gov. Palin, one of which is the Ketchikan-Gravina Bridge. The one which everyone keeps attacking her for supporting, but which both Senator Obama and Senator Biden also supported. It's intended primarily to call attention to the fact that very few people's hands are clean in this, and that those who live surrounded by fans probably shouldn't start slinging shit around.

dc_dux · 09-24-2008, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Mostly because this is the Palin-vetting thread, which deals with issues surrounding Gov. Palin, one of which is the Ketchikan-Gravina Bridge. The one which everyone keeps attacking her for supporting, but which both Senator Obama and Senator Biden also supported. It's intended primarily to call attention to the fact that very few people's hands are clean in this, and that those who live surrounded by fans probably shouldn't start slinging shit around.

I agree..very few hands are clean on earmarks.

IMO, the difference is that "earmark reform" is not the talking point repeated again and again and again by Obama and Biden as it is with McCain and Palin...particularly with McCain voting against the 05 bi-partisan earmark reform legislation and Palin requesting and receiving more earmarks (per capita) in 08-09 than any other governor.

Ending all earmarks (less than 1 percent of the budget) will have little impact, despite the McCain/Palin claims that it will be the centerpiece of their budget reform.

The_Dunedan · 09-24-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Palin requesting and receiving more earmarks (per capita) than any other governor.

My feelings and thoughts on her earmarks are held in reserve for the moment. I'm trying to find out more about what these specific earmarks were, and why they existed. The only one I've been able to find much info about is the Bridge...turns out it's to link a fast-growing tourist destination with its' airport, which is on a nearby island. It'd save the city of Ketchikan gads of money in ferry-boat fuel and help relieve harbor congestion. This last is a major problem, since the island is a major port-of-call on Alaska's cruise lines, as well as being a seasonal fishing-industry hub like most places on the Alaskan coast. Palin's objection seems to stem from the fact that the projected cost more than tripled between the time the proposal was submitted and when the plans were finalised. However, it was a pretty obscenely expensive thing to begin with, so I'm holding agnostic on this one as well.

I object to the earmark system on principle, but since it's currently in place (and unlikely to go anywhere) I don't have a problem with congressthingies or governors trying to get some of their constituent's stolen money back and applied to things that the money should be going for anyway. I only truly get outraged when it goes for pointless pet projects, silly nonsense like studies on the IQ of Mayonnaise.

dc_dux · 09-24-2008, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

My feelings and thoughts on her earmarks are held in reserve for the moment. I'm trying to find out more about what these specific earmarks were, and why they existed. The only one I've been able to find much info about is the Bridge...turns out it's to link a fast-growing tourist destination with its' airport, which is on a nearby island. It'd save the city of Ketchikan gads of money in ferry-boat fuel and help relieve harbor congestion. This last is a major problem, since the island is a major port-of-call on Alaska's cruise lines, as well as being a seasonal fishing-industry hub like most places on the Alaskan coast. Palin's objection seems to stem from the fact that the projected cost more than tripled between the time the proposal was submitted and when the plans were finalised. However, it was a pretty obscenely expensive thing to begin with, so I'm holding agnostic on this one as well.

I object to the earmark system on principle, but since it's currently in place (and unlikely to go anywhere) I don't have a problem with congressthingies or governors trying to get some of their constituent's stolen money back and applied to things that the money should be going for anyway. I only truly get outraged when it goes for pointless pet projects, silly nonsense like studies on the IQ of Mayonnaise.

I also agree that all earmarks are not bad, particularly if they are submitted through an open appropriations process.

You can find Palin's $200 million in 09 earmark requests here (pdf)

My issue with McCain/Palin is the hypocrisy of playing the earmark boogeyman card at every turn and the nonsense that ending them will contribute significantly to balancing the budget.

The_Dunedan · 09-24-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

My issue with McCain/Palin is the hypocrisy of playing the earmark boogeyman card at every turn and the nonsense that ending them will contribute significantly to balancing the budget.

True, but I am at times forced to wonder if there shouldn't be a Cynicism Test for voting: if you don't recognize that 90% of these bastards are lying 90% of the time, no ballot for you!

kutulu · 09-25-2008, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Oh, and about that infamous bridge...

Biden, Obama helped keep 'Bridge to Nowhere' alive - CNN.com

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, it seems.

"Supported" is a little far fetched. Voted for bills that had earmarks for the bridge is the correct way to phrase it. They were part of massive transportation bills. It's kind of

Besides, this issue isn't who supported it or didn't support it. The issue is who denies ever supporting it and claims she said 'thanks but no thanks'

If you are interested in the full story you can read about it here.

Quote:

Biden and Obama vote for the $286.4 billion highway bill, with the Gravina bridge and the other projects included. McCain and only three others vote against it. The highway bill passes 91 - 4 with five not voting.

...

The amendment would strip the earmarked funds from the Gravina and Knik Arm bridges and commit them to the rebuilding of the Twin Spans bridge in Louisiana, which was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Obama and Biden vote against the amendment. McCain is not present. The amendment fails 82 - 15 with three not voting.

Maybe an even more correct way to put it was that Biden, Obama and nearly every other Senator voted for the bill that had the bridge on it as an earmark.

Here is what Palin said when the project was finally killed (one year ago):

Quote:

Palin (Sept. 2007): Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.

The only reason why the project was killed was because Congress wouldn't give them enough money. Her own words clearly show she was for it till the end. Sounds a lot like "Thanks but no thanks" to me

The CNN story is ridiculous. So what if Biden and Obama voted for tranportation bills that included it. They haven't made a campaign about wasteful earmark spending and then went and picked up the governer from the state requesting his example of wasteful earmark spending.

What Palin should have done is admit that it was a bad project and that she shouldn't have supported it. Instead she lies and acts as if she never wanted the bridges. Everyone in the world says, wait a second, right here you actively supported it. She ignores it and repeats the lie a dozen times.

Whatever on the bridge. Palin has bigger problems. She got totally pwned by Katie Couric:

Quote:

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

This shows exactly why they don't let he talk to the press. She really has trouble when a question doesn't fit the talking points. Honestly it isn't all her fault. She never should have been picked for the job. She is about as unqualified as you can get.

jorgelito · 09-25-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels

RB, sounds like this has become personal, maybe?

Since this isn't a private correspondence and I was one who did choose to reconsider my initial position (which had been the same as yours) after reading the responses and now understand where Cyth's coming from, why would you accuse him of not reconsidering his position when you still haven't even reconsidered yours?

He asked a question, we all came at him with our positions. Why should he back down from a valid question? WHen I asked the same question (not framed in a rapekit), why was it discounted?

Jewels, you are awesome. Why aren't you a mod yet?

jewels · 09-26-2008, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Jewels, you are awesome. Why aren't you a mod yet?

Thanks, I guess. I'm concerned about gender backlash.

dc_dux · 09-26-2008, 03:10 PM

The best line of the day...from conservative columnist Kathleen Parker of the National Review:

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

Paker just ripped Palin wide open:

Quote:

ver since John McCain named Sarah Palin to the ticket, it has been a given that she has energized conservatives, particularly conservative women.

So nationally syndicated conservative columnist Kathleen Parker's blistering assessment in the National Review Online today is sure to sting -- especially coming on the heels of growing discontent among other conservative intellectuals who had been "wildly stoked" about her selection just weeks ago.

Parker, after a scalding critique of Palin's readiness for high office, begs the Alaska governor to step down from the Republican ticket.

"Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first," Parker advises, pleading: "Do it for your country."

Palin has given virtually no free-form interviews, but her sit-downs thus far have provided critics with ample fodder. Until quite recently, those critics have been largely partisans. Republicans have not just stood by her -- they have adored her.

Parker says: No more. She has declared her cringe reflex exhausted.

"Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League," Parker writes.

"Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there," she continues. "Here's but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: 'Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we're talking about today. And that's something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.'

"When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama's numbers, Palin blustered wordily: 'I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?'"

"If BS were currency," Parker concludes, "Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."

Conservative Columnist Turns on Palin

It will be interesting to see if others follow...or if/how the campaign might somehow try to cancel next Thursday's VP debate? They have to be scared shitless to put her on that stage next week.

ottopilot · 08-25-2010, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Perhaps we're witness to a growing populist revolt... except it's coming from the right instead of the left. It may not be justified, but the perception of old-school elitist failure is being promoted with great popularity. Is there a thread of truth to that perception? If so, is it an orchestrated over-reaction or justified?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

otto......what popularity? where is "the perception of old-school elitist failure" being promoted other than by the conservative talking heads?

Unless you consider Limbaugh "ditto heads" (and other followers of similar [partisan infotainers) a growing populist revolt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Wake me when its over!

Or at least point me to something that would support the conclusion that the perception is widespread and goes beyond the Republican base.

Time to wake up sleepy-head... it's here... you'll miss all the fun!

dc_dux · 08-26-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Time to wake up sleepy-head... it's here... you'll miss all the fun!

Oh, I've been awake and watching and it is fun!

Seeing the Republican party move even further to the right as a result of the influence of the Tea Party candidates with radical positions that will be ripe for legitimate questioning during the general election campaign.

I'm under no illusion that the Democrats wont lose a significant number of sears this November and possibly the majority in either the House and/or Senate. From Obama's perspective, it is probably the best outcome for the 2012 campaign.

Many of the Tea Party positions play well in the Republican primaries, but simply criticizing, demagoguing and pandering as opposed to offering positive solutions do not make for popular governance among most centrists. One only need look at the positions (and outlandish statements) of folks like Rand Paul in KY and Sharon Angle in NV.

And in the long term, alienating most minorities and many moderates on social issues (as opposed to fiscal issues) is not a strategy for long term success.

Tully Mars · 08-26-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Oh, I've been awake and watching and it is fun!

Seeing the Republican party move even further to the right as a result of the influence of the Tea Party candidates with radical positions that will be ripe for legitimate questioning during the general election campaign.

I'm under no illusion that the Democrats wont lose a significant number of sears this November and possibly the majority in either the House and/or Senate. From Obama's perspective, it is probably the best outcome for the 2012 campaign.

Many of the Tea Party positions play well in the Republican primaries, but simply criticizing, demagoguing and pandering as opposed to offering positive solutions do not make for popular governance among most centrists. One only need look at the positions (and outlandish statements) of folks like Rand Paul in KY and Sharon Angle in NV.

And in the long term, alienating most minorities and many moderates on social issues (as opposed to fiscal issues) is not a strategy for long term success.

But will they lose any "Roebucks?" Sorry I'm no typo nazi but that was just way too easy.

Actually I'm not only expecting heavy loses mid-term I'm welcoming them. Let the GOP vote in a bunch of right leaning loons. It will only show their ideas for what they are- really bad and even worse. Hell I hope Nv goes to Sharron Angle. I'd think after hearing of her "Scientology for prisoners" et el programs people wouldn't vote for her but Reid is a pretty ripe target. At this point Tara Reid might kick his ass.

That should make the field better in 2012. Then maybe they'll (the GOP) put up someone sane in 2012 to challenge Obama. Then maybe we'll have less of a bad choice for those who decide Obama's not worth another term.

09-24-2008, 07:53 AM	#322 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	and you only read the last sentence or two of my post. you act as though the state was some voluntary association that meets around the woodstove in order to decide whether we should have a fire department this week or whether we care this week about women who are raped enough to not take care of a couple telephone poles or deal with a neighbor's chipmunk problem. and as if the pool of resources that a state works with is the quarters that we all throw into a spitoon or some such. there's nothing about that which enables a discussion: you set it up so that you either agree with your premise and then there "is a discussion" or you don't, in which case "you have poor communication skills" there is a broader question that you could ask, which has to do with whether it makes sense to import micro-level understanding to thinking about how a state allocates resources---but you'd have to want to have a discussion about that. and you don't---you assume your way of posing the question is coherent. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-24-2008, 08:38 AM	#324 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so there's no expectation in your world that logic is of any consequence and no reason to assume that if your logic is a mess then you might not get the responses you find to be interesting or helpful? and if there is a logic problem with a given argument, the problem lay not with the author of the post, but with the people who point out that there's a logic problem? is that how things work for you? this is not a game i am at all interested in playing. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-24-2008, 08:56 AM	#326 (permalink)
jewels Eponymous Location: Central Central Florida	__________________ We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess. Mark Twain

09-24-2008, 09:00 AM	#327 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	here's my last comment: the discussion that has now ground to a halt had any number of possibilities in terms of movement, how and in which direction it could happen. you chose not to take the rest of us up on the questions that were raised about your argument. that was your choice, and much of the discussion has, in fact, been shaped by your choice and reactions to your choices. you chose not to reconsider your position, you chose to push this thread in the direction it's gone. buck up, comrade. this is not such a big deal. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-24-2008, 09:03 AM	#328 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	right, it's my fault to ask where the monies for something should come from. SHOCKING! SHOCKING! I say. that's retarded rb. simply retarded to say that there's no logic to that question, that there's no logic to positing it in any form. that's utter bullshit. so sorry to disrupt you socialists and your advocation of free social programs where no one pays for anything and everyone owns everything. i'll leave so you guys can just kumbaya yourselves back to sleepy dreams. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

09-24-2008, 09:47 AM	#331 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I don't know why you guys are still playing with this subtopic. It isn't like he's going to admit he's wrong about his assessment of the situation (despite overwhelming evidence). All you will get is self gratifying bs about how he understands fiscal responsibility and nobody else does.

09-24-2008, 06:04 PM	#335 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Mostly because this is the Palin-vetting thread, which deals with issues surrounding Gov. Palin, one of which is the Ketchikan-Gravina Bridge. The one which everyone keeps attacking her for supporting, but which both Senator Obama and Senator Biden also supported. It's intended primarily to call attention to the fact that very few people's hands are clean in this, and that those who live surrounded by fans probably shouldn't start slinging shit around.