quote:I could really care less if he has a PHD in Quantum Physics and an MBA. His naive replies show his true thinking ability.
Which part? The part where I showed how Bush plays the polling game as well, or the part where I initially pointed out that Byrd's constituency is not going to want to oust him?
You seem to be wanting to turn this into a "burn the liberal scum" kind of discussion, while I have directly addressed things you said and been summarily ignored. While you are quite comfortable in ignoring your own internal inconsistencies when you speak, those same inconsistencies stick out like a sore thumb to the rest of us, some of whom you would probably otherwise having argue in your favor.
You aren't thinking your rambling through, and in parts of what you touch on (when you're on topic and not trying to roast a liberal straw man) you could have the support of others who post here regularly and loudly. But you could only do this if you took an extra minute to think about what you post before you do.
Anyone else who sees the irony here, raise your hand.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
1 : painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage 2 obsolete : MALICE 3 : an object of envious notice or feeling <his new car made him the envy of his friends>
Synonyms enviousness, invidiousness, jealousy, begrudge, grudge Related Word covetousness; grudging; resentment, covet, crave, desire, hanker, long, want, yearn
Wow…. I didn’t realize there was so much to know about envy. Never really thought about “types of envy”
posted
See, the reason I laughed at the story posted was the painfully obvious slant to it. There was no discussion about any other objections to Rice's nomination, the point of the article was clearly meant to imply that the only reason anyone would block Rice would be because they were racist.
That's not journalism. That's spin.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, the reason I laughed at the story posted was the painfully obvious slant to it. There was no discussion about any other objections to Rice's nomination, the point of the article was clearly meant to imply that the only reason anyone would block Rice would be because they were racist.
That's not journalism. That's spin.
I totally agree, Chris.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Synonym: [defined as] one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
quote:Redundancy: [defined as] the quality or state of being redundant : SUPERFLUITY ... a superfluous repetition : PROLIXITY ... an act or instance of needless repetition
I'm afraid the issue is one of redundancy. That is, the use of superfluous words -- aka redundancy -- is potentially the problem at hand.
quote: Which part? The part where I showed how Bush plays the polling game as well, or the part where I initially pointed out that Byrd's constituency is not going to want to oust him?
You seem to be wanting to turn this into a "burn the liberal scum" kind of discussion, while I have directly addressed things you said and been summarily ignored. While you are quite comfortable in ignoring your own internal inconsistencies when you speak, those same inconsistencies stick out like a sore thumb to the rest of us, some of whom you would probably otherwise having argue in your favor.
You aren't thinking your rambling through, and in parts of what you touch on (when you're on topic and not trying to roast a liberal straw man) you could have the support of others who post here regularly and loudly. But you could only do this if you took an extra minute to think about what you post before you do.
Anyone else who sees the irony here, raise your hand.
Your site saying that Bush uses polls was kind of funny. Inaccurate and leftist of course. Bush has been steady on his beliefs. Clinton would change at the drop of a poll! (which of course you don’t argue against) And yes, I address the part of Byrd’s constituency. Did you miss that? I’m hopeful for 06. No more pork! I fail to see any inconsistencies in my points. Hey, what happened to the piss contest? Weren’t you going to list all your degrees? By the way, my hand is up. I see the irony.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and other Democrats used President Bush's nomination of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state to rake his Iraq war policy over the coals Tuesday.
Despite impressive credentials, Rice failed to acknowledge mistakes in planning and carrying out the Iraq war, and defended misguided policies on torture and other subjects, Kennedy said in remarks prepared for delivery on the Senate floor.
"Before we can repair our broken policy, the administration needs to admit that it broken," Kennedy said.
[...]
Byrd and Boxer, opponents of the war from the outset, had one-hour speeches scheduled. They consider the war a mistake and Bush's postwar strategy inadequate as determined insurgents take a rising toll of American casualties. They hold Rice at least partly responsible, since she was Bush's White House national security adviser during his first term.
====================
Would it also delight Byrd to block Rice because she's African-American? Wouldn't surprise me a bit. That's not enough justification to let her sail into the office with full approval and validation of her previous job performance.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Jay, would you do me a personal favor and stop defining "leftist" as "not a fan of President Bush?" It's fairly inaccurate.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jay, would you do me a personal favor and stop defining "leftist" as "not a fan of President Bush?" It's fairly inaccurate.
For you Tom I’ll try. Not promising anything you know how I like to rant sometimes. But since even Republican critics are considered liberal and Democrat supports are considered conservative, it might be fairly accurate.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My degree is in Computer Engineering. How about you?
Jay, Jay, Jay...I have to say that by pulling this one out of the hat, you've completely lost any credibility you may have had, with me at least. By citing your degree in this way, what you're saying is that by having a degree, this makes you smarter and more able to reason than someone who doesn't. That's such a logical fallacy that it is laughable.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if Republicans criticize other Republicans? Do they become liberal? If Democrats support the war in Iraq (as Joe Lieberman has from day one) are they really closet conservatives?
There's a range between conservative and liberal, and people can hold beliefs on any part of it. There's also a range between Republican and Democrat, and it doesn't always match point for point with the conservative/liberal one.
If you're only going to poke fun at the extremes, all the people in the middle are going to ignore you. And there's an awful lot of them.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like your opinion on the definition of overwhelming, because the numbers don't seem too terribly overwhelming on Bush's win to me. I'm going back a bit here, I know, but if Bush won overwhelmingly, then the Governor's race and 2 of the house races were thorough trouncings in favor of the Dems. Overall in the house races Dems were voted for about 7 to 5, and the Dem governor won by almost 2 to 1. So I wouldn't take the Bush victory too seriously as an indication of Byrd's fate.
Okay, beyond that, I know the guy has his problems (and they're some doozies), but if he weren't around, I wouldn't have the job that I do, fwiw. He's pretty much single-handedly kept much of the state alive for a long time.
And AJ, I'm not sure whether to take your post as an insult or not. Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: My degree is in Computer Engineering. How about you?
Jay, Jay, Jay...I have to say that by pulling this one out of the hat, you've completely lost any credibility you may have had, with me at least. By citing your degree in this way, what you're saying is that by having a degree, this makes you smarter and more able to reason than someone who doesn't. That's such a logical fallacy that it is laughable.
So when Jutsa Notha Name said:
quote: You like slumming into areas you don't normally go, like thinking, huh?
I couldn’t point out that I can think? Aka I have a high level degree? I didn’t see you saying anything to Justa. Tom was the only one to do that. Kind of makes me think you’re a bit biased here.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fairness to Jay, I think Justa was out of line, and Jay has a perfect right to feel offended.
That Jay may not know how to express himself particularly well, or may buy into a certain stereotypical line of thought, does not mean we're entitled to attack him personally -- even if, whether specifically or by implication, he commits the same sort of sin.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, please continue to defend Jutsa Notha Name. Doesn’t bug me in the least. Shows your bias And if you haven’t noticed, not much in the way of conservative thought flies here!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
same sort of sin? What? Oh come on. How is me asking him his degree any sort of sin. The dork took a personal attack on me and I made a come back. One in defense of myself. One I must say he chose not to respond to very much. I already said I could really care less what his degrees are in. Pointless… oh well. Sometimes it is so funny around here………
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, sure, I'm not denying that he may have a right to feel offended. I was just saying that I think the point that lma was making was that the ability to think and a degree did not necessarily coincide.
I will admit, however, that the last line of my post was perhaps overly snarky, and I apologize.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"same sort of sin? What? Oh come on. How is me asking him his degree any sort of sin."
It's not, Jay. I think one of your problems, perhaps, is that you have difficulty understanding context. Can you think of nothing that you have said which others might find fairly insulting, possibly even as it relates to their ability to think?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can you think of nothing that you have said which others might find fairly insulting, possibly even as it relates to their ability to think?
Well, sure. I’ve probably offended lots of Democrats. Insulting? What cause I said I had a degree as proof that I could think? If someone wants to take me responding to Justa out of context that’s their problem. Justa said I couldn’t think. I gave non political proof that I could. I really don’t think I need to defend myself on the fact that Justa is a looooser. Oops. Guess that’s insulting.
[ January 25, 2005, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Insulting? What cause I said I had a degree as proof that I could think?
No. Your "similar sin" is implying that other people, including Democrats, cannot or do not think. Justa has said the same thing about you, which you found offensive. In the same way that Justa's comment was unfair and out of line, your comments about 48% of the population of the country are also highly unfair.
I should not have to explain this to you.
quote:Justa is a looser. Oops. Guess that’s insulting.
It would be if it were spelled correctly, certainly. As it is, it's kind of a compliment.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Justa said I couldn’t think. I gave non political proof that I could.
A degree really isn't proof that you can think. Just like you said this:
quote: I could really care less if he has a PHD in Quantum Physics and an MBA. His naive replies show his true thinking ability.
about Justa, your posts here are what others here are going to be judging you on, not whatever degrees you may or may not have.
And your posts here are, for the most part, childish and inaccurate, and oblivious of people's responses to you.
I had a freshman year prof who said something I really like... "A college degree proves to potential employers that you can put up with four years of bull****." That's really all most undergrads do, show you can jump through hoops. So how about responding rationally for awhile, and showing you can do more than dish the BS as well as put up with it?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if everyone else is done name-calling, I just read this thread and would like to comment on the first post -- or the first few.
To me, what Jay was trying to say originally, was that given the Senator's past history and track record, this sure makes it LOOK like he is opposing based on race.
I mean, the old "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck" thing. He does have a history of racism, and I don't think anyone here at refuted that.
However, Tom is right in that just because this guy has shown non-favorable opinions of blacks in the past, does not necessarily mean we can assume that is the single factor he is using in opposing Rice. With his track record on race, it may be a contributing factor, but may not be the sole factor.
So what is the debate here? Is it a debate on whether or not Byrd is racist? Or whether or not Rice is a good choice?
posted
Oh brother….. Glad I got under your alls skin. Maybe if you could actually counter some of my points instead of this petty stuff. Anyway, till our next conservative bashing-defending session This one started out so fun too
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you could either make some points, or you could respond to any of the posts that have been about the posted article.
FG - my point was that the article posted does indeed make it look as if Byrd opposes Rice for purely racist reasons. Which does not mean it's at all accurate or complete, only that it's slanted.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll start off with a statement that is sure to draw some fire, especially on these boards.
I'm a Democrat.
Okay...on to the good stuff. Senator Byrd is a proven racist. There is no doubt about that fact. As such, any statement made by Byrd concerning any non-white person will always be viewed through the prism of a racist making yet another racist comment.
The unfortunate part about this is that he is a legally represented member of Congress, and his ignorance concerning race has the potential to overshadow what is essentially a sound argument. Rice is not qualified, on either grounds of morality or competency, to hold the position. What further upsets me about this situation is that her nomination is practically guaranteed precisely because of her race and gender.
Hearing experienced political commentators explain that no one wants to be the person voting agaist the first black female Secretary of State should have been the first nail in the coffin of her nomination. Instead, the PC police are rounding up anyone who disagrees with her nomination, pointing at Byrd and saying "Look, they're racists. That's why they won't approve her!"
Welcome to the new America. Liberty and Freedom for those with deep pockets and the people who agree with them.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe if you could actually counter some of my points instead of this petty stuff.
Since you've ignored pretty much every counter to your points, why would this matter?
Further, since you disowned your original contention when you said "I really think Byrd is objecting more out of his blind hatred of Bush then anything else," why should we bother trying to have a serious discussion with you?
quote:Hearing experienced political commentators explain that no one wants to be the person voting agaist the first black female Secretary of State should have been the first nail in the coffin of her nomination.
Since someone will say this about ever minority/gender first in high goverment posts, you seem to be nailing coffin lids shut for any ethnicity/gender combination that hasn't been approved to a particular office yet.
The basis on which a candidate should be approved should be determined by criteria that have nothing to do with race or sex. To nominate someone solely because of their race or gender, or to nominate someone to avoid the perception that you might be racist is an ignorant politically correct move. I supported Colin Powell's nomination because he was an intelligent, experienced person, who had the right skills for the job. When he was nominated, his race wasn't mentioned at all, not even by Byrd.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rice is 50 years old?!? Wow, I'd've never guessed.
Quick advice, Jay: stop, take a deep breath, and argue with people only after repeating to yourself the following little mantra—
"My opponents are human, too. Their views derive from their own beliefs, which are contingent on the lives they've led and the experiences they've had. They are not ogres. They feel love and hate and pain and doubt and joy just as I do. I will never treat their views as purposefully evil, but as genuinely held, if perhaps untenable in the end. When arguing with them, I will stop before impulsively striking out, and I will read two or three times what they have written, making every effort to connect empathically with them and point out respectfully but firmly where I think they've gone wrong."
That's got to be your credo if you're going to successfully influence anyone, friend.
[ January 25, 2005, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe if you could actually counter some of my points instead of this petty stuff.
And when a citation is made to a source countering what you said, it is "obvious leftist bias." Oddly, that wouldn't make it any more incorrect, that would only mean you are unwilling to listen to counters.
I'm not listing my various certifications because it is frankly none of your business. Furthermore, since your degree has nothing to do with the issue you are arguing, you gained zero credibility to begin with. Beating that dead horse and bickering over whose degree is better than the others is useless, though if mere certification trumps another's view then both you and I would be dwarfed by some others who post here more often than I. In the real world, things just don't work that way.
I know plenty of people who haven't thunk an original thought in their lives who have degrees in all sorts of fields, so you stating that as a defense was quite lacking from the start. Learn what it is like to not toe the line so much and you will find it rather liberating.
Oh, and I registered over a decade ago as a Republican.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the introduction of his book, it came out around last August, Byrd states that the Bush administration "is systematically, relentlessly and with stubborn arrogance making a mockery of these constitutional mandates through subterfuge, warmongering and intimidation of a Congress that is cowed, timid, and deferential."
If Byrd understands Rice to be a party to these tendencies, which he does, I think that it's safe to say that his problems with Rice are political and not racial.
quote: I’m not sure I ever hear ideas from Democrats.
I have yet to hear one from you, so I would be careful about saying that.
quote: Whatever, I stand by my points
What were those again?
quote:So if it’s racist to block them because they are a conservative minority, guess that means the Democrats are no longer the party of the minority races.
If that is the only reason you need to object to their nomination then it is racism. If there are other issues that cause you to object then it might not be.
The fact that someone IS a minority doesn't mean that every person who disagrees with them is a racist..and not every person who agrees with the decision of a racist is one either....there could be many possible reasons why someone wouldn't want to confirm this nomination. Some may object to her honesty (or lack of), some to her past job performance....and some to her race, as awful as it is.
But to lump Byrd and Kennedy into the same "racist" category just because they both oppose her nomination is stupid.
posted
Tom, why do you believe using race as a political tool is racist? It seems pragmatic to me. If there really is an advantage to doing so, I am not seeing the racism in recognizing it. The advantage is presumably real. Where is the racism in admitting it?
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, Sorry for taking so long to reply (seriously, what are you people doing on here at 1:00 A.M?)
It's sometimes difficult to eloquently express thoughts and ideas on a message board (or e-mail). When I said that race was never an issue in regards to Colin Powells nomination, I was speaking specifically to the perceived notion that to not nominate him was somehow racially motivated.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well congratulations to her! Congratulations everyone!! Lets see how many nations we can alienate when the Secretary of State has absolutely no desire to even attempt diplomacy and avert the blunt actions of our war-mongering President!! Yeah!! Congratulations us!!
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as you're making basesless predictions about the future, do you mind sliding some hot stock tips my way?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
