Bober - I think my first direct response to your earlier post makes it clear. You seemed to be attacking with no valid back-up, so I challenged you. That's all; no hidden motive. I notice that in your latest post you did not even bother to admit the factual mistakes you made in challenging me. My point is that your rants come across as petty and without justification. You seem to simply ignore it when people blatantly prove you to be incorrect. That's not useful debate, it's just simple ranting. No purpose served. And it reduces any reader's inclination to give your ideas legitimate consideration. I am not flaming you. I am simply letting you know how your arguments are perceived by me, and it would appear, by at least some others as well.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Your first post directed at me indicated that I insuled someone. What exactly was this insult? It's hard to come up with a counterpoint when I didn't have a point to begin with.
If you're referring to the brick wall statement, that was an edit if you would have taken notice. I had a diatribe typed up, and when I realized that I keep saying the same thing over and over, with little or no reasonable response, I simply gave up. Every political thread around here is the same damn thing. Here's a quick overview of politics at AnandTech:
R: Democrats suck, here's why.
D: That info source is a conservative rag. Here's some truthful info.
R: Your info is a liberal rag.
D: Your candidate sucks.
R: Your candidate sucks.
D: You suck.
R: You suck.
If there are any threads that haven't followed this pattern recently, please point them out. As I said, I should just quit opening these threads as there is rarely any useful information or discussion.
If you're referring to the brick wall statement, that was an edit if you would have taken notice. I had a diatribe typed up, and when I realized that I keep saying the same thing over and over, with little or no reasonable response, I simply gave up. Every political thread around here is the same damn thing. Here's a quick overview of politics at AnandTech:
R: Democrats suck, here's why.
D: That info source is a conservative rag. Here's some truthful info.
R: Your info is a liberal rag.
D: Your candidate sucks.
R: Your candidate sucks.
D: You suck.
R: You suck.
If there are any threads that haven't followed this pattern recently, please point them out. As I said, I should just quit opening these threads as there is rarely any useful information or discussion.
<< If McCain had been nominated I would have voted for him because campaign finance reform is a big issue with me. >>
Damn, chess9, get your politics straight! One minute you're a sexist, left-wing, pinko communist bastard and the next time you post you completely redeem yourself with common sense as quoted above. Have you been drinking?
Yeah, had McCain made a run he would have got my vote, too.
Damn, chess9, get your politics straight! One minute you're a sexist, left-wing, pinko communist bastard and the next time you post you completely redeem yourself with common sense as quoted above. Have you been drinking?
Yeah, had McCain made a run he would have got my vote, too.
BobberFett:
He, he, I think you DO need to stop reading these threads. You've discovered our formula! Actually, most of us work for Anand and we have worked out what we thought was an elaborate scheme to generate controversy and readership on the board. But, now, you done found us out.
JellyBaby: I'm very liberal on some issues, such as affirmative action, which I support. I'm opposed to abortion, which is really no one's issue but is considered a conservative point of view. I support a strong military, but with restraint, which is a centrist view. I support foreign aid which tends to be a centrist viewpoint. I like McCain and think the overriding issue for us is to get rid of the mess in Washington with everyone being bought and sold to the highest paying interest group. I think that would help all Americans. I don't care for Hilary or Bill, but think Bill was a very good President in most ways. I can't stand GW. I pray Lazio wins in N.Y. and that most of the other Republicans, particularly those who pressed Clinton's impeachment, get thrown out. Got it?!
Most folks don't fit the labels we try to slap on them.
He, he, I think you DO need to stop reading these threads. You've discovered our formula! Actually, most of us work for Anand and we have worked out what we thought was an elaborate scheme to generate controversy and readership on the board. But, now, you done found us out.
JellyBaby: I'm very liberal on some issues, such as affirmative action, which I support. I'm opposed to abortion, which is really no one's issue but is considered a conservative point of view. I support a strong military, but with restraint, which is a centrist view. I support foreign aid which tends to be a centrist viewpoint. I like McCain and think the overriding issue for us is to get rid of the mess in Washington with everyone being bought and sold to the highest paying interest group. I think that would help all Americans. I don't care for Hilary or Bill, but think Bill was a very good President in most ways. I can't stand GW. I pray Lazio wins in N.Y. and that most of the other Republicans, particularly those who pressed Clinton's impeachment, get thrown out. Got it?!
Most folks don't fit the labels we try to slap on them.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
<< ewe >>
Me?
LOL, I'm quite in agreement. I used to be a Rush Limbaugh fan, adhering tightly to the party line. Then I grew up. Nothing is black and white, but there are plenty of sheep that see it that way. If there were fewer sheep we'd be arguing McCain/Gore.
BF: I thought the pun was cute. Glad you got it. I'm only here to brighten your day. At $150/hour, I do anything Anand wants.
I'm only here to brighten your day. At $150/hour, I do anything Anand wants. EnginR9: I am sure that reliable sources like Rush is where you get your information. Stay ignorant. It suits you.
Wall Street Journal & SF Examiner. Take them both with a grain of salt because of their obvious biases.
Wall Street Journal & SF Examiner. Take them both with a grain of salt because of their obvious biases.
And even if I did listen to Rush, at least I wouldn't be having my opinions manipulated.
Rush is clearly Republican.
Newsweek would have you believe they're just giving you the news, but they're putting their own spin on everything, or not covering news that hurts their cause altogether.
Rush is clearly Republican.
Newsweek would have you believe they're just giving you the news, but they're putting their own spin on everything, or not covering news that hurts their cause altogether.
Here's a rather detailed article on the one's right no the other's right regarding the Texas environment:
Washington Post Article
Washington Post Article
Moonbeam:
What the writer and both sides aren't telling you is that the reports are self-policed. Many companies fail to report, and the EPA has no way to know if ANY of the data in the reports is accurate. Self-regulation will not work, as the problem with the grandfathered plants demonstrates. This is a problem NATIONWIDE, but is acute in Texas, and very serious in Houston which has had a long laissez-faire approach to businesses and auto pollution. Frankly, the article is very softball and should have come down harder on the polluters.
I do not understand why some people think pollution should be allowed to continue. People who wouldn't think of sh*tting in their living rooms think it's just fine to dump toxic chemicals into the earth and release toxic gases and compounds into the air. The politicians have been too influenced, as the article notes, by the infusion of campaign cash to attack the problem.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue. This is about protecting our planet. I'd like to know I will be able to safely eat the fish I take out of the Ocean or our rivers and streams. I'd like to think I will always be able to ride my bike without keeling over of a heart attack from the air pollution.
Don't these polluters have kids? Sheezh!!
What the writer and both sides aren't telling you is that the reports are self-policed. Many companies fail to report, and the EPA has no way to know if ANY of the data in the reports is accurate. Self-regulation will not work, as the problem with the grandfathered plants demonstrates. This is a problem NATIONWIDE, but is acute in Texas, and very serious in Houston which has had a long laissez-faire approach to businesses and auto pollution. Frankly, the article is very softball and should have come down harder on the polluters.
I do not understand why some people think pollution should be allowed to continue. People who wouldn't think of sh*tting in their living rooms think it's just fine to dump toxic chemicals into the earth and release toxic gases and compounds into the air. The politicians have been too influenced, as the article notes, by the infusion of campaign cash to attack the problem.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue. This is about protecting our planet. I'd like to know I will be able to safely eat the fish I take out of the Ocean or our rivers and streams. I'd like to think I will always be able to ride my bike without keeling over of a heart attack from the air pollution.
Don't these polluters have kids? Sheezh!!
Fact is AndrewR & Engine9, all politicians are hypocrites & liers, its a pre-requisite.
The party machines, backyard beaurocrats & corporate lobbyists just won't put their weight behind anyone with an ounce of honesty, otherwise. Why do you think the majority of Americans just don't bother voting? If you think Bush or any other politician is different you are naive in the extreme.
The party machines, backyard beaurocrats & corporate lobbyists just won't put their weight behind anyone with an ounce of honesty, otherwise. Why do you think the majority of Americans just don't bother voting? If you think Bush or any other politician is different you are naive in the extreme.
As humans, chess, we easily divide into us and them. I don't think it's too hard to set one group against another, attack the do gooder environmentalist because he threatens your pocket book, etc. Once the emotionalism of animosity is fixed in place,with most people you needn'tworry about them applying critical thinking to any alternative points of view.
I'm Typing:
<< MSNBC is one of the most rabid right wing media outlets ever. That is first. Second, if you beleive everything you see on tv is a FACT, then you have a lot to learn about how politics affects journalism. >>
You have something to learn about reading comprehension. Notice this part:
<< From an MSNBC.com article today: >>
See the .com part? I thought you didn't. These articles were mostly anecdotal for the political aspects and were quoting, quoting mind you, from Lieberman and/or stating factual information reported in many outlets. I feel sorry for you if plain and simple facts make your little hypocrites look bad.
If MSNBC.com is so conservative, I have a hard time understanding why their Opinion section is so consistently liberal. The only consistent writer who is conservative leaning is Jay Severin, and he is more centrist than anything else. Eric Alterman is one of the biggest Gore cheerleaders in journalism today. Or, do you not have any concrete examples of the "rabid right wing" conspiracy currently running rampant through MSNBC? I read the web site just about every day and have not noted to any degree that it caters to Republicans.
<< Again you show your complete ignorance when it comes to politics. Politicians speak out of both sides of their mouths, sometimes on the same day, depending upon the audience. To say that the dems do it without realizing that the repubs do it just as much is sheer stupidity. >>
Ok, here's a challenge for someone who seems find basic reading a challenge (ie., I'm not hopeful of your success): Where did I mention the Republicans in any of my posts in this thread? Please, I'm waiting. There is one reference to Republicans in the context of Hollywood, and, as I wrote there, I was only stating that they do not overtly court Hollywood's support (since they won't get it). If you want to talk about ignorance, save your fingers and talk into a mirror. Why is it impossible for you to address the central issue of my posts, Gore/Lieberman's hypocrisy, without bringing up Bush/Cheney? Too uncomfortable for you?
Yes, politicians often change their positions when talking to different audiences, that much has almost always been true. However, Clinton has shown a particular ability to completely change his colors and do policy reversals in midstride. Lieberman has also shown this willingness to absolutely compromise what some people might consider fairly core positions -- school vouchers and media violence (what's that other issue??). This isn't just pandering to the local audience -- this is spinelessness and brings into question all fundamental positions that they might profess.
Tripleshot:FYI, Atlanta has also seen a very similar decline in air quality and had about 70 or more days this summer of dangerous air quality. This comes under Democratic leadership in the governor's house and in the state government. It has also worsened since the formation of a regional planning commission that has failed to curb the tremendous growth that Atlanta is experiencing while the city has been under federally-imposed penalties for poor air quality. The problem is far from concentrated in Texas and is the result of a booming economy that encourages new home building away from the cities with the subsequent long commutes. The increased traffic also keeps diesel powered heavy hauling trucks on the road at idle, thereby intensifying the pollution of the worst offenders on the road. Perhaps the government should tell people how to live?
If pollution is so bad in Texas, and the EPA controls pollution regulations in this country, why haven't Clinton/Gore done something about it? Seems to me that Bush isn't the only one to blame for it -- and Clinton/Gore have had eight years to work on it. If the environment is so dear to you, you need to direct as much ire at the current administration as at Bush, if at all.
That being said, would the people in Texas (you know, the voters?) support the kinds of environmental controls in place in California? If not, it's up to federal authorities to rectify the problems. Have they?
<< There is a time and a place for Federal intervention... >>
Then why has it taken so long if the problem is as bad as you say?
<< MSNBC is one of the most rabid right wing media outlets ever. That is first. Second, if you beleive everything you see on tv is a FACT, then you have a lot to learn about how politics affects journalism. >>
You have something to learn about reading comprehension. Notice this part:
<< From an MSNBC.com article today: >>
See the .com part? I thought you didn't. These articles were mostly anecdotal for the political aspects and were quoting, quoting mind you, from Lieberman and/or stating factual information reported in many outlets. I feel sorry for you if plain and simple facts make your little hypocrites look bad.
If MSNBC.com is so conservative, I have a hard time understanding why their Opinion section is so consistently liberal. The only consistent writer who is conservative leaning is Jay Severin, and he is more centrist than anything else. Eric Alterman is one of the biggest Gore cheerleaders in journalism today. Or, do you not have any concrete examples of the "rabid right wing" conspiracy currently running rampant through MSNBC? I read the web site just about every day and have not noted to any degree that it caters to Republicans.
<< Again you show your complete ignorance when it comes to politics. Politicians speak out of both sides of their mouths, sometimes on the same day, depending upon the audience. To say that the dems do it without realizing that the repubs do it just as much is sheer stupidity. >>
Ok, here's a challenge for someone who seems find basic reading a challenge (ie., I'm not hopeful of your success): Where did I mention the Republicans in any of my posts in this thread? Please, I'm waiting. There is one reference to Republicans in the context of Hollywood, and, as I wrote there, I was only stating that they do not overtly court Hollywood's support (since they won't get it). If you want to talk about ignorance, save your fingers and talk into a mirror. Why is it impossible for you to address the central issue of my posts, Gore/Lieberman's hypocrisy, without bringing up Bush/Cheney? Too uncomfortable for you?
Yes, politicians often change their positions when talking to different audiences, that much has almost always been true. However, Clinton has shown a particular ability to completely change his colors and do policy reversals in midstride. Lieberman has also shown this willingness to absolutely compromise what some people might consider fairly core positions -- school vouchers and media violence (what's that other issue??). This isn't just pandering to the local audience -- this is spinelessness and brings into question all fundamental positions that they might profess.
Tripleshot:FYI, Atlanta has also seen a very similar decline in air quality and had about 70 or more days this summer of dangerous air quality. This comes under Democratic leadership in the governor's house and in the state government. It has also worsened since the formation of a regional planning commission that has failed to curb the tremendous growth that Atlanta is experiencing while the city has been under federally-imposed penalties for poor air quality. The problem is far from concentrated in Texas and is the result of a booming economy that encourages new home building away from the cities with the subsequent long commutes. The increased traffic also keeps diesel powered heavy hauling trucks on the road at idle, thereby intensifying the pollution of the worst offenders on the road. Perhaps the government should tell people how to live?
If pollution is so bad in Texas, and the EPA controls pollution regulations in this country, why haven't Clinton/Gore done something about it? Seems to me that Bush isn't the only one to blame for it -- and Clinton/Gore have had eight years to work on it. If the environment is so dear to you, you need to direct as much ire at the current administration as at Bush, if at all.
That being said, would the people in Texas (you know, the voters?) support the kinds of environmental controls in place in California? If not, it's up to federal authorities to rectify the problems. Have they?
<< There is a time and a place for Federal intervention... >>
Then why has it taken so long if the problem is as bad as you say?
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
JJM...
"Neither candidate can be trusted to actually do what he says."
If this is the case, and the presumption being made from it that you do not care for either candidate, who would YOU PERSONALLY prefer to see as a candidate, that you WOULD feel good about voting for? No bashing, or saying that both current candidates are bad or not the optimal choice, simply who YOU think would be worthy of your vote and confidence. Surely there must be someone in this nation of 260 million people that fits the bill. The name of this person, please?
"Neither candidate can be trusted to actually do what he says."
If this is the case, and the presumption being made from it that you do not care for either candidate, who would YOU PERSONALLY prefer to see as a candidate, that you WOULD feel good about voting for? No bashing, or saying that both current candidates are bad or not the optimal choice, simply who YOU think would be worthy of your vote and confidence. Surely there must be someone in this nation of 260 million people that fits the bill. The name of this person, please?
The most intelligent candidate was Bradley. The most pragmatic and independent was McCain. I would have voted for either had either been nominated. I agree completely that the choice we have today is the lesser of two evils. (I have said this in other threads as well.)
I dismiss third party candidates because they have no realistic chance, and I don't agree with many of their positions anyway.
I will be voting. I am not someone who believes that not voting is a "vote." There are other important races and issues on the ballot which require voter attention too.
Between Jr Bush and Gore, I'll take Gore. Jr Bush is too weak-willed and will cave in to the extreme elements of the Republican party, just as he demonstrated during the primaries. There are some Republican issues I agree with, but the hate-filled and mean-spirited drivel from the extreme elements tick me off. I also don't want religion being legislated in this country more so than it is already.
Jr Bush's environmental record in Texas is lacking. The belief that industry will voluntarily police itself is hogwash. The pressure to deliver shareholder wealth dominates every decsion. Government-imposed environmental rules forces everyone to play on the same playing field. I can state this opinion with confidence since I have witnessed first hand the discussions that occur in the executive meeting rooms of a number of large energy and chemical companies. Jr Bush hides behind the favorite Republican ideal of "less government" rather than stepping up and making the hard decisions.
Jr Bush also admits that his entire campaign was built around trying to push the character issue, and that he was purposely short on the details of his programs until he gets elected. That strikes me as shallow. Also, do I want a President who at first refuses to debate because he thinks his opponent is too good at it? Where is his spine?
Sum it all up and Jr Bush's "leadership" is not the kind I want to see.
I dismiss third party candidates because they have no realistic chance, and I don't agree with many of their positions anyway.
I will be voting. I am not someone who believes that not voting is a "vote." There are other important races and issues on the ballot which require voter attention too.
Between Jr Bush and Gore, I'll take Gore. Jr Bush is too weak-willed and will cave in to the extreme elements of the Republican party, just as he demonstrated during the primaries. There are some Republican issues I agree with, but the hate-filled and mean-spirited drivel from the extreme elements tick me off. I also don't want religion being legislated in this country more so than it is already.
Jr Bush's environmental record in Texas is lacking. The belief that industry will voluntarily police itself is hogwash. The pressure to deliver shareholder wealth dominates every decsion. Government-imposed environmental rules forces everyone to play on the same playing field. I can state this opinion with confidence since I have witnessed first hand the discussions that occur in the executive meeting rooms of a number of large energy and chemical companies. Jr Bush hides behind the favorite Republican ideal of "less government" rather than stepping up and making the hard decisions.
Jr Bush also admits that his entire campaign was built around trying to push the character issue, and that he was purposely short on the details of his programs until he gets elected. That strikes me as shallow. Also, do I want a President who at first refuses to debate because he thinks his opponent is too good at it? Where is his spine?
Sum it all up and Jr Bush's "leadership" is not the kind I want to see.
JJM: That's a pretty good precis of my views as well. But Bradley had NO chance, and he certainly would not have won the election. Too smart, too dry. McCain would have won, but would he have accomplished anything? I like to think he would have been able to use the Presidential bully-pulpit to embarrass some members of the right wing of his party to agree to campaign finance reform. A majority of Democrats will now vote for stronger legislation, so reform would have been possible. If Bush is elected, we will have more of the same-rule by special interest groups, e.g. oil, insurance, banking, manufacturing. If Gore is elected, we MAY have modest reform, but I'm not expecting a lot of campaign finance reform from a party that still rents rooms at the White House.
AndrewR
Well now,anything you say now will go in one ear and out the other.
You attack me for things someone else says?
You only read what you want to read and get only half the information and then go on the attack half cocked.
Get back to the flock.:|
Well now,anything you say now will go in one ear and out the other.
You attack me for things someone else says?
You only read what you want to read and get only half the information and then go on the attack half cocked.
Get back to the flock.:|
<< The most intelligent candidate was Bradley. >>
The most intelligent candidate was Alan Keyes. Too bad people didn't want to hear what he had to say.
KingHam
TrainWreck and also rans:
So where did Mr. Keyes pick up his Phi Beta Kappa key? Harvard? Yale, or the University of North Dakota Hoople Extension Night Division? Please post his Stanford-Binet scores. We prefer INFORMED opinion.
So where did Mr. Keyes pick up his Phi Beta Kappa key? Harvard? Yale, or the University of North Dakota Hoople Extension Night Division? Please post his Stanford-Binet scores. We prefer INFORMED opinion.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter