Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

View Poll Results: How many?
14+ 26 11.02%
13 1 0.42%
12 2 0.85%
11 1 0.42%
10 3 1.27%
9 1 0.42%
8 1 0.42%
7 2 0.85%
6 4 1.69%
5 9 3.81%
4 13 5.51%
3 17 7.20%
2 33 13.98%
1 27 11.44%
0 96 40.68%
Voters: 236. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-29-2005, 01:19 PM
DVaut1 DVaut1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 27
Default Re: Do you support Bush?

[ QUOTE ]
When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a fine definition.

Let's just to be clear, though: why then, do Democrats 'play politics' with the War on Terror?

Perhaps you have a different response; but the seemingly obvious answer is, of course, their base demands they oppose President Bush's policies -- that's part and parcel of legitimate politics, right? We elect leaders to enact our will? Isn't that what we hope our elected leaders do? I'm generally assuming we could cite polling data which shows an uber-majority of Democrats strongly oppose most, if not all of President Bush's policies.

So, I assume when we're eventually done with this conversation, we'll discover that the charge of 'playing politics' is esentially legitimate politics, as I have yet to hear a charge of 'playing politics' that had much substance to it -- at least, in the way that those who levy such a charge want it to; as the charge of 'playing politics' is an attempt to some attach nefarious motives to what is an essentially legitimate action.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-29-2005, 02:42 PM
bocablkr bocablkr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Default Re: Do you support Bush?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where and when did the President say that it didn't exist?

Why not give credibility to single scientists? Is it because they aren't part of a wacko left-wing agenda?

Here is a small list of "Individual Scientists" that I came up with in less than 5 minutes using Google.
NASA Scientists David Lind and Judith Lean.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas Astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics,(National expert on global climate change).
Dr. Madhav Khandekar- PHD in Meteorology and top climate scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years.
Richard Willson- Columbia University Researcher.

There were more, but I HAVE to go to work so I can SUPPORT a welfare recipient somewhere. Try it and look for yourself, it really isn't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed you could not come up with one single scientific organization from ANY country in the world. Use google all you want. I suppose every scientific organization in the world is part of a left-wing pinko conspiracy. Individual scientists can be just as crazy as you. The peer reviewed organizations are the ones the world respects.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-29-2005, 05:08 PM
ALawPoker ALawPoker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 38
Default Re: Do you support Bush?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a fine definition.

Let's just to be clear, though: why then, do Democrats 'play politics' with the War on Terror?

Perhaps you have a different response; but the seemingly obvious answer is, of course, their base demands they oppose President Bush's policies -- that's part and parcel of legitimate politics, right? We elect leaders to enact our will? Isn't that what we hope our elected leaders do? I'm generally assuming we could cite polling data which shows an uber-majority of Democrats strongly oppose most, if not all of President Bush's policies.

So, I assume when we're eventually done with this conversation, we'll discover that the charge of 'playing politics' is esentially legitimate politics, as I have yet to hear a charge of 'playing politics' that had much substance to it -- at least, in the way that those who levy such a charge want it to; as the charge of 'playing politics' is an attempt to some attach nefarious motives to what is an essentially legitimate action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said, but I disagree. Let me make sure I understand your point by putting it in simple words: Playing politics results in doing the will of what the people you represent would want done anyways, so even if it's just a game to the politicians, they end up doing what's expected of them regardless.

Is that basically what you're saying?

I would disagree with you on the basis that an elected official's job is (well, should be) to do more than reflect the raw will of the people he represents. There's a reason we don't simply have a national vote on every issue -- we didn't have a national vote to decide to go to war -- we elect officials because it is impractical for every citizen to be fully informed on every issue. Dems would oppose Reps (and vice versa) on just about everything, even without putting much thought into the issue at hand; for our elected officials to do the same thing is to surrender to partisanship. Ideally our elected officials would critically analyze each issue, but the reality is they have to stay fairly loyal to their base even when their base is in the wrong. It's too bad, because more good could be done if there wasn't partisan dead weight pulling on every issue.


This may be getting off topic now, so PM me if you see fit.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-29-2005, 05:56 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Do you support Bush?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where and when did the President say that it didn't exist?

Why not give credibility to single scientists? Is it because they aren't part of a wacko left-wing agenda?

Here is a small list of "Individual Scientists" that I came up with in less than 5 minutes using Google.
NASA Scientists David Lind and Judith Lean.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas Astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics,(National expert on global climate change).
Dr. Madhav Khandekar- PHD in Meteorology and top climate scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years.
Richard Willson- Columbia University Researcher.

There were more, but I HAVE to go to work so I can SUPPORT a welfare recipient somewhere. Try it and look for yourself, it really isn't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed you could not come up with one single scientific organization from ANY country in the world. Use google all you want. I suppose every scientific organization in the world is part of a left-wing pinko conspiracy. Individual scientists can be just as crazy as you. The peer reviewed organizations are the ones the world respects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go again, the classic liberal attack. Anything that doesn't go along with their belief has no credibility. FYI one of the "respected organizations" you are asking for such as "The United Nations eleventh Conference of Parties Climate Meeting" (since you lib's love the UN so much) wouldn't even let Dr. Khandekar into the meeting because they didn't like his belief that the sun has more to do with it than man does.

The scientists at the Armagh Observatory make these claims as well.

BINGO! Does anyone see a correlation here between the UN and bocablkr's stance on the issue?

Furthermore, how ironic is it that we are having this conversation and only two of the 15 countries that signed on to it are on pace to make the required cuts in greenhouse gases? LOL! Does it sound a little hypocritical to anyone?

I am PROUD that we haven't signed on to it and will NOT support a presidential candidate that does endorse it. All it will do is hamstring the American economy.

bocablkr, why can't you debate the issue with me in a civil manner instead of becoming so emotional and calling me crazy? Is it because that is all you lib's have when confronted on the issues?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-29-2005, 10:54 PM
andyfox andyfox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,677
Default Re: Do you support Bush?

I don't know if we can remake the Middle East. If we can, it's not going to be done well by the group currently running things in Washington, because they are an arrogant, ignorant bunch. They are certainly capable of causing a lot more trouble than, for example, the relatively impotent madman currently running Iran.

That said, I think honest people can disagree with my second sentence above. That you and I, basically 180 degrees opposite on the war in Iraq, agree with the sentence you highlighted from my original post should awaken some eyes to the probability of the three sentences you didn't highlight also being true.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-29-2005, 11:05 PM
andyfox andyfox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,677
Default Re: Do you support Bush?

No need to apologize, let me try being clearer.

I originally said, "As for the phone tapping, the administration could have accomplished whatever it wanted going through the FISA court, which has approved tens of thousands of wiretaps while rejecting only a handful. The fact that they didn't lends one to believe they have something to hide."

You replied, "Most likely it was that they knew the Dems would play politics with it if they found out the administration was requesting permission to spy. So they hoped they could get away with it."

The policy of wiretapping without getting FISA approval started, apparently, directly after 9/11. Directly after 9/11, the president got whatever he wanted. Had he gone to the congressional leadership and said, listen guys, I'm afraid we're gonna get hit again if we have to keep going to the FISA court, I'm gonna bug some guys who we know are terrorists without getting FISA approval, I'll keep you posted on what's happening, my sense is they would have gone along. The administration claims they kept the congress informed, but it's hard to tell exactly what they told them and how honest they were. Even Frist said he was told what was appropriate for him to be told. I interpret that somewhat enigmatic comment to mean that Frist knows they didn't tell him some things.

I have no idea what Bush was trying to hide. What I do know, from his comments about the wiretapping, from the attorney general's comments about inherent presidential power, and from the vice president's comments about restoring the presidency to its rightful position of power, it that they feel they can interpret the spirit of the law without honoring the letter of it.

I don't see how going around the court would be dodging political heat. There would have been no heat had they gone to the court. It's SOP, done by presidents of both parties for a long time. The only heat that would be generated would be if they didn't go to the court.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-29-2005, 11:37 PM
bocablkr bocablkr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Default Re: Do you support Bush?

[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr, why can't you debate the issue with me in a civil manner instead of becoming so emotional and calling me crazy? Is it because that is all you lib's have when confronted on the issues?


[/ QUOTE ]

Happy to debate you any time on the issue. You have not named a peer reviewed organization from any country in the world. Do you know how many countries are in the world? Are they all part of some UN conspiracy?? By-the-way I am not even close to being a liberal except on social issues.
Conservative on some issues and middle of the road on others.

You are just parroting the party line when it comes to environmental regulations and it effects on industry. It has been shown that environmental regulations actually create jobs instead of losing them. The other health and environmental benefits are just a plus. They said the clean air and water act would destroy some industries - didn't happen. The recovery of the Great Lakes region has added hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars into the economies of the Great Lake states.

Down in Tampa the local power company spent almost a billion dollars converting their plant to more efficient natural gas instaed of fighting the environmentalists. A billion dollars. Did it hurt them??? Nope. They recovered it in 3 years because they were so much more effiecient. The CEO, a republican could not believe it. They are more profitable now than ever before. The area residents no longer complain of breathing and sinus problems. And they ended up added almost a billion into the economy. Rush and his ditto heads don't know what they are talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-30-2005, 12:22 AM
Borodog Borodog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5
Default Re: Do you support Bush?

3 words for you: Broken Window Fallacy.

Also, giant power companies LOVE lobbying for more strict environmental controls that require them to spend billions. Do you see why?

I'll give you a hint: what happens to their smaller competitors who can't afford the government-mandated conversions in order to comply with the new regulations?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-30-2005, 01:04 AM
MMMMMM MMMMMM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,103
Default Re: Do you support Bush?

Good thoughtful post Andy.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-30-2005, 09:27 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Do you support Bush?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr, why can't you debate the issue with me in a civil manner instead of becoming so emotional and calling me crazy? Is it because that is all you lib's have when confronted on the issues?


[/ QUOTE ]

Happy to debate you any time on the issue. You have not named a peer reviewed organization from any country in the world. Do you know how many countries are in the world? Are they all part of some UN conspiracy?? By-the-way I am not even close to being a liberal except on social issues.
Conservative on some issues and middle of the road on others.



You are just parroting the party line when it comes to environmental regulations and it effects on industry. It has been shown that environmental regulations actually create jobs instead of losing them. The other health and environmental benefits are just a plus. They said the clean air and water act would destroy some industries - didn't happen. The recovery of the Great Lakes region has added hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars into the economies of the Great Lake states.

Down in Tampa the local power company spent almost a billion dollars converting their plant to more efficient natural gas instaed of fighting the environmentalists. A billion dollars. Did it hurt them??? Nope. They recovered it in 3 years because they were so much more effiecient. The CEO, a republican could not believe it. They are more profitable now than ever before. The area residents no longer complain of breathing and sinus problems. And they ended up added almost a billion into the economy. Rush and his ditto heads don't know what they are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good stuff. Attack, attack and attack some more rather than listening to another opinion. You are right, the rest of us shouldn't even post because you are the only intelligent one in the room, the one of "supreme knowledge", LMAO.

What "peer reviewed" organization have you provided that does? Again, I will repeat, what difference does it make if you have as many scientists say the sun causes it as you do members of some organization that says man causes it? You still haven't provided for me where it was that the President said it didn't exist.

If what you say is true down in Tampa, then that's splendid.

You can believe that man is responsible for all the global warming you want to. I guess mankind is responsible for the hurricanes too? I will continue to say that the sun is responsible for the majority of it. I will also say that the Kyoto Treaty is a joke and will hurt America.

It is quite evident that neither of us is changing the other's opinion.


"You cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.