RE: A Question for liberals...

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: A Question for liberals...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: A Question for liberals...

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/1/2009 10:22:02 PM

ModeratorEleven

Posts: 2007
Joined: 8/14/2005
Status: offline

Children, that's enough.

XI

_____________________________

This mod goes to eleven.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 101

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/1/2009 10:31:49 PM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

Yup.

It`s snowing outside,here.

I`m going for a walk with the dogs,they love the snow.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to rulemylife)

Profile

Post #: 102

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/1/2009 10:44:58 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

Sounds delightful. Have fun.

RML, we are on completely different pages in terms of what the issue is. I am concerned by the President's lack of executive experience. You seem to be insisting that executive experience is no different than legislative experience. I don't see any point in debating such a position, any more than I would find a point in debating whether driving a passenger car was the same as running an 18-wheeler through the Rockies at 79,900 lbs. There isn't anything to say after the trucker tells the motorist he doesn't know what he's talking about.

< Message edited by TheHeretic -- 3/1/2009 10:47:44 PM >

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to Owner59)

Profile

Post #: 103

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/1/2009 11:00:00 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Sounds delightful. Have fun.

RML, we are on completely different pages in terms of what the issue is. I am concerned by the President's lack of executive experience. You seem to be insisting that executive experience is no different than legislative experience. I don't see any point in debating such a position, any more than I would find a point in debating whether driving a passenger car was the same as running an 18-wheeler through the Rockies at 79,900 lbs. There isn't anything to say after the trucker tells the motorist he doesn't know what he's talking about.

That defines the problem right there.

You don't see any point in debating anyone who disagrees with you.

You prefer to just discount their opinion as not worthy of your time and effort.

Again, if you want to debate the issue of "executive experience", I am more than happy to.

If you just want to trade insults, that gets boring quickly.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 104

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/1/2009 11:14:10 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

That was even more over the top than I expected. I don't debate with people who disagree?

Holy crap.

Good night

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Profile

Post #: 105

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/1/2009 11:21:47 PM

aravain

Posts: 1211
Joined: 8/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

It would have been high-school civics 20 years ago, but somebody decided to let the teachers unions be in charge of our schools.

As the son of a teacher who works himself in the education field, my understanding is that state officials--not teachers, and certainly not their unions--set curricula.

Thank you.

I find it very disconcerting how often I see jabs at teachers' unions with claims and misconceptions that just... aren't true.

At best a teacher gets *input* into their curriculum... and even then only when they're changing it (which, btw, doesn't happen often), and if they're a newer teacher (in some districts tenure is all that matters), it's likely that they won't even get a say unless it's a specialist subject (like music, thank goodness for me).

And the majority of the curriculum is set based on standards set by... you guessed it, the local and state governments. Most school districts tool them *only* to the required tests. If you want to blame anyone... blame first your school-board, and second your state government (and then start contacting people to let them know exactly what you think about it).

Outlawing teachers' unions does nothing but put newer teachers at risk, while protecting those that have been around long enough to gain tenure. If anything... outlaw the tenure system for public schools, it will hold teachers more accountable for the entirety of their careers.

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 106

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 12:10:03 AM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

Ah,but it`s sooo much easier and "simpler" to scapegoat the teacher`s union.

Requires little thought and even less concern for the truth.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to aravain)

Profile

Post #: 107

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 6:44:03 AM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

You often do not answer direct questions I pose to you, that is what I am talking about.

I also challenge you to find a personal insult that I use in my debates, other than pointing out your hypocricy. An example is your post here, where you use a veiled personal attack at the end.

There was even a topic where I asked a question, you response to me was to answer my own question first. I then responded and answered it, and then said to show how much integrity you have by now answering it. You never did. You often do not.

As far as this discussion, I think the OP is just a bait for another round of cheerleading arguements, kind of like the opposing thread to this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Not sure what you mean.

I stick to the discussion,unlike you and score keeper harry,who seem easily distracted by the personal.

Back to the discussion,shall we?

Or are we not intelligent enough to understand?

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Owner59)

Profile

Post #: 108

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 7:21:46 AM

Raiikun

Posts: 2650
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeptha
But I think Bush was a radical spendthrift, of the type that comes along only so often, so I don't get why people are suddenly up in arms about Washington spending habits. .

Well a lot of us were equally critical of the spending during Bush's administration too. Those who are acting suprised and appalled about the sudden increase in spending now are just pretty ignorant that it's nothing new.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that people should actually, ya know, limit spending to what they can afford. Shocking, I know.

(in reply to Jeptha)

Profile

Post #: 109

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 7:41:51 AM

NewOCDaddy

Posts: 134
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

But to reiterate, I don't believe the "executive experience" argument is valid.

A Senator makes as many, if not more, decisions than the President makes regarding how the country is run.

You may argue that his is only one voice in an elected body, but the President is only one voice as well, who accomplishes things primarily with the support of Congress.

A legislator is 1/100th or 1/435 th of a decision. They ostensibly receive their direction from their constituents, they don't make decisions. To claim that the President's "one voice" isn't more equal than the other voices is hopelessly disingenuous.

Blowbama's lack of executive experience is shining through in several ways:

Giving the "stimulus package" to Reid and Pelosi to write
Naming tax cheats to cabinet/advisory opinions
Twisting words a la Clinton (there are no "earmarks" in the stimulus package, when anyone with half a brain knows that its 75% payback to special interests)
Ignoring the history that his own advisors wrote about. You can't spend your way out of a recession.
Ignoring market psychology with doomsday speeches, the only purpose of which is to brainwash people into accepting the ideology that his programs represent.

The damage he will do to the US economy with the stimulus/budget packages will make Carter's missteps pale in comparison. The only hope the US has to avoid the catastrophe in his self-fulfilling prophecies is exposing and embarassing the earmarks and the costs of his programs for 2 years, and when we are still in a recession, clean house in Congress.

Just one example of his moronic lack of ability to think beyond his ideology. It is widely acknowledged (virtually 100% of economists, including the socialists like Krugman) that unless and until the real estate market rebounds the economy will stay in recession or worsen. It is also obvious to anyone that has ever bought a house that the most important determinant in what you'll pay for the house is your monthly nut, mortgage payments (ie interest) being the largest factor in carrying costs. So what does the brilliant man do? He proposes cutting the mortgage interest deduction, raising carrying costs, and promoting spending that is guaranteed to increase interest rates.

There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance, and ignorance in combination with intelligence and oratory is far more dangerous than simple stupidity.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Profile

Post #: 110

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 8:11:58 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

I'm a liberal (and a card carrying member of the ACLU) and I voted for Obama. I'm also a scientist- and Obama's a shot of oxygen after being
Not yet mentioned in this debate is one of Obama's accomplishments with respect to climate change. Basically the Kyoto protocol lacked teeth sealed up in tomb for 8 years.because the US walked away from the table. Well, there's a set of talks coming up which should culminate in a new set of agreements in Copenhagen at the end of this year (IIRC). There's some pretty frenzied diplomacy going on, because it looks like the US is finally taking the lead here.

Issues- the stimulus package contains a lot of money for agencies that have been on a shoestring. There will no doubt be some waste, but if it's held at a low level, the overall impact of this money for climate change will be useful. I'm one of the folks that agree with Rahm Emanuel (politics does indeed make strange bedfellows- I think the guy's a jerk.) that crises breed opportunities for change.

Uncle Sam is the biggest customer on the planet- and everybody else has been leaving their money home. Uncle Sam's role is a first customer- he's the guy who's willing to pay for performance when other people say a new solution is too expensive. Well, it is- until you look at things with a longer term viewpoint. I think the long term savings by moving away from imported oil will more than outweigh the short term expense of doing so. And since we need jobs now- having Uncle Sam step up and say we're placing orders for new wind turbines, solar farms, biofuels plants etc. is crucial. Government jobs cured the last depression- not only in infrastructure but also defense contractors went on a hiring spree. It's just a slow process- like turning a super tanker- but at least the rudder is over.

I'd give Obama an "A" for his outline- but the rest of its incomplete. The devil is in the details- but I like his approach. He's admitting he's human and that there will be mistakes. This is a far, far cry from Dubya who when asked what his mistakes were- admitted he'd made some, but couldn't think of what they were right then.

I'm furious about the bailout of banks- but I think the alternative might indeed be worse. I'm less aggravated about the bailout for Detroit- the auto mfg's problems are largely outside their control (health care and bank failures- most people can't buy a new car without a loan- but there's certainly been some lousy management too.) I'd have no problems with special windfall taxes on the people that made money in these financial institutions or burning Thain in effigy.

In response to a previous poster "Every president has inherited problems from the previous one some even far more difficut then Obama. But nobody has whined as much as obama has about inheriting his problems. Reagan had the bad economy from carter. clinton had it from Bush sr. George W had it from clinton. And Obama had it from George W.
Thats because the economy works ina cycle."

Sorry- but the facts don't gybe. Dubya inherited a relatively healthy economy and in 8 years has driven the world to the brink of economic collapse. Does anyone think that if Gore had actually gotten the presidency that we'd be in the same pickle now? Get real....This is also my response to anybody that claims that there's no real difference between candidates. Reagan also inherited an economy that wasn't in too bad shape- but the deficits he ran up (starting with a deficit of $70B he ran the total deficit to over $1.5 TRILLION) have left us in the pickle we're in now- and his policies led to the recession of '81-82.

What would I be happy seeing Obama do? We need cutbacks in defense spending. Although most people tend to believe the BS that Bush's spending on defense has kept this country safe, the reality is that they were as incompetent in this arena as they were everywhere else. We're on the hook for idiotic and useless expensive weapons systems ranging from the F-35 (a turkey as ever was) to "brown water" nuclear submarines to a ballistic missile defense system that won't work. Not to mention we have a navy which could whip the rest of the world combined- a bit overkill if you ask me.

Sam

(in reply to Raiikun)

Profile

Post #: 111

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 8:27:21 AM

NewOCDaddy

Posts: 134
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

You may be a scientist but you are clearly no economist. If youre looking for a single cause for a complex process, then you stop at Clinton repealing Glass-Steagal.

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 112

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 8:45:38 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

"You may be a scientist but you are clearly no economist."

Thank you for the compliment. Seems to me economists such as Greenspan have done a great deal to get us into this mess, whereas poor, misguided science souls who just don't understand economics and were scratching our heads at the claim of economic growth with real wages stagnating or falling may have been right after all.

Sam

(in reply to Owner59)

Profile

Post #: 113

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 9:49:36 AM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Obama has said he would actually increase defense spending, and this is why....

All that equipment that has been wasted in the last several years, needs replaced. Even if military actions are reduced or stopped, all of that equipment needs repaired, overhauled or replaced. Once that spending is done, then there should be a reduction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

What would I be happy seeing Obama do? We need cutbacks in defense spending. Although most people tend to believe the BS that Bush's spending on defense has kept this country safe, the reality is that they were as incompetent in this arena as they were everywhere else. We're on the hook for idiotic and useless expensive weapons systems ranging from the F-35 (a turkey as ever was) to "brown water" nuclear submarines to a ballistic missile defense system that won't work. Not to mention we have a navy which could whip the rest of the world combined- a bit overkill if you ask me.

Sam

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 114

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 10:08:52 AM

NewOCDaddy

Posts: 134
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

Since he's raising military pay and the defense manufacturing industry was decimated by the "Peace Dividend" and no longer has enough players to bid competitively, the only area for cuts in spending are on technology....the best hope for security.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

Profile

Post #: 115

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 10:11:18 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

I'd think it'd be a great idea for Humvees to be redesigned so that there is greater survivability in a blast. I'd also like to see veterans get the health care they deserve. If we need to shell out more in the short term for this- so be it. But at some conferences I've heard that at least one major weapons system is going to be canceled and I think we've got room to cancel a bunch more- especially ones that don't work. Like our health care system- our weapons procurement system is broken too- we've been saddled with idiotic things like the B-1, the B-2- the A-10 was canceled and is now back in service (a very useful airplane) and now they're trying to ditch the Orion in favor of some 737 with a lot of gear added. Dumb, dumb, dumb..... And let's not get into the bottomless pit of SDI funding under all its various guises which has had extremely limited spin offs (some software) and is fundamentally flawed.

Sam

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

Profile

Post #: 116

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 10:58:09 AM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Actually the best bang for the buck is on technology. A smaller overall force, with higher tech equipment. There is an essay I read about insurgent warfare, and that Spec Ops, combined with smart technology was the best way to go. I do not foresee us having to invade any other countries in the future (at least I hope so), and I feel that a reduced military presense around the world is needed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NewOCDaddy

Since he's raising military pay and the defense manufacturing industry was decimated by the "Peace Dividend" and no longer has enough players to bid competitively, the only area for cuts in spending are on technology....the best hope for security.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to NewOCDaddy)

Profile

Post #: 117

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 11:33:24 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NewOCDaddy

quote:

But to reiterate, I don't believe the "executive experience" argument is valid.

A Senator makes as many, if not more, decisions than the President makes regarding how the country is run.

You may argue that his is only one voice in an elected body, but the President is only one voice as well, who accomplishes things primarily with the support of Congress.

A legislator is 1/100th or 1/435 th of a decision. They ostensibly receive their direction from their constituents, they don't make decisions. To claim that the President's "one voice" isn't more equal than the other voices is hopelessly disingenuous.

So, the President is just independent and is not a representative of his constituents?

And how does Congress not make decisions?

As far as being hopelessly disingenuous, give me an example of the latest law any President has ordered to be put in effect.

(in reply to NewOCDaddy)

Profile

Post #: 118

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 1:09:24 PM

slvemike4u

Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

First of all, I find it reprehensible that you bring up the fact that Obama admitted that he experimented with cocaine as an argument for mistrust. Though I loathed and still loath Bush the Younger, I never stooped so low as to bring up his former drinking problems as a reason he was an unfit president. To try to tie the responsibilities and power of the presidency to a youthful experimentation with marijuana and cocaine is beneath you.

      Don't get your panties in a bunch, Spinner. It's fair game. Way to try the "attack the messenger" distraction, though. My reference was to power as a drug. It certainly went to George's head, so maybe you should have been a bit more vocal about his history.

     I don't see you answering any questions though. Who said anything about young? I asked about being faced with life and death decisions, perhaps something along the lines of JFK commanding a little boat of men who depended on him for their lives.



      O59, I'm well past having any expectation that you might have a rational answer to a direct question. Have a nice night.

Rich,,if Kennedy had been judged as a result of a hard look at his "executive" experience as Commander of PT 109,or for that matter Lincoln as the elected (re:popular vote)Captain of militia....niether would have been elected President.

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 119

RE: A Question for liberals... - 3/2/2009 1:16:13 PM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: NewOCDaddy

quote:

But to reiterate, I don't believe the "executive experience" argument is valid.

A Senator makes as many, if not more, decisions than the President makes regarding how the country is run.

You may argue that his is only one voice in an elected body, but the President is only one voice as well, who accomplishes things primarily with the support of Congress.

A legislator is 1/100th or 1/435 th of a decision. They ostensibly receive their direction from their constituents, they don't make decisions. To claim that the President's "one voice" isn't more equal than the other voices is hopelessly disingenuous.

So, the President is just independent and is not a representative of his constituents?

And how does Congress not make decisions?

As far as being hopelessly disingenuous, give me an example of the latest law any President has ordered to be put in effect.

rule, it's pretty obvious to any of us with any kind of "executive experience" that you haven't had much, and not much understanding of what personal accountable leadership is about.

Obama may or may not come through in an unexpected pinch or crisis. We will see.

But I will tell you that having personal responsibility of leadership is often best learned in a smaller, less critical organization, than in arguably the most important executive position in the world.

That's all that is being said, but it seems that you take it as a personal slur against Obama. It's really not. It's simply a recognition of his reality.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Profile

Post #: 120