Political Thread [23]


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Political Thread [23]

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 12 · Next
Author Message
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2910
Credit: 6,657,487
RAC: 2,207
United States
Message 893713 - Posted: 11 May 2009, 20:49:26 UTC

DISCLAIMER

    SETI@home and University of California assumes no liability for damage to your computer(s), loss of data, any other event and/or condition that may occur as a result of participating in SETI@home. The opinions, comments, links, and the content therein (hereafter "Posts") do not necessarily reflect the views of the State of California, the University of California (Berkeley and/or its parent system), the SETI@home project, its programmers, volunteers, affiliates, and/or sponsors (hereafter "The Group"). The individual who creates a Post (hereafter "The Poster") is solely responsible for that Post's content. The Poster is not responsible for content linked to outside of the realm of this forum unless the poster created and/or maintains the content of the linked information. Posts do not carry the endorsement of The Group and should not be interpreted as such. The Group disclaims liability of all damages (monetary, physical, psychological, mental, emotional, and otherwise) caused by exposure to any and/or all Posts.

WARNING

    Administrators of this website reserve the right to delete Posts as they wish without prior notice and/or recourse for appeal.

TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT

    There will be no tolerance of trolling or spamming. Flame wars are not permitted. Punishment for non-compliance may be severe, cruel, unusual, and/or inhumane. There is no obligation to read and/or write Posts. There is no obligation to respond to a Post. There is no official language in this thread. This thread may not be respawned until 300 posts have been made.

MISCELLANEA

    This thread is the continuation of "Political Thread" Nos. [22], [21], [20], [19], [18], [17], [16], [15], [14], [13], [12], [11], [10], [9], [8], [7], [6], [5], [4], [3], [2], [1].

    Even though Steve Ballmer does his monkey dance every time we say it, this is the SETI@home forum for BOINC users only!


Go to it.

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2910
Credit: 6,657,487
RAC: 2,207
United States
Message 893718 - Posted: 11 May 2009, 21:02:39 UTC

This series has been going on for quite a while, and I have been away from it for months. I just want to say that even though I didn't vote for him, Obama is my president and the president of my country. This statement is meant to contrast the ignorant sentiments many Americans posted here, claiming that Bush 43 was not their president, that he stole/lost the 2000 election or that the Supreme Court elected him. These opinions were and are false and unsupportable. They were expressed here, mainly, because these people are sore losers. Well, now that a Democrat has been elected president, he has my support, and that is the way it should be after an election.

Personally, I hope Obama succeeds in turning the economy around and keeps up the fight against terrorist who attacked us, and I applaud his efforts so far (even though I don't always agree with him or Congress).

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,885,205
RAC: 2,793
United States
Message 893731 - Posted: 11 May 2009, 21:58:44 UTC - in response to Message 893718.

This series has been going on for quite a while, and I have been away from it for months. I just want to say that even though I didn't vote for him, Obama is my president and the president of my country. This statement is meant to contrast the ignorant sentiments many Americans posted here, claiming that Bush 43 was not their president, that he stole/lost the 2000 election or that the Supreme Court elected him. These opinions were and are false and unsupportable. They were expressed here, mainly, because these people are sore losers. Well, now that a Democrat has been elected president, he has my support, and that is the way it should be after an election.

Personally, I hope Obama succeeds in turning the economy around and keeps up the fight against terrorist who attacked us, and I applaud his efforts so far (even though I don't always agree with him or Congress).


Interesting choice of words, "ignorant sentiments [...] sore losers", yet flame wars are not allowed ;)

The great thing about being an American is that you are just as entitled to your opinion of these other Americans of which you speak, as they are to their own opinions of Bush 43.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2910
Credit: 6,657,487
RAC: 2,207
United States
Message 893777 - Posted: 12 May 2009, 0:46:09 UTC - in response to Message 893731.

This series has been going on for quite a while, and I have been away from it for months. I just want to say that even though I didn't vote for him, Obama is my president and the president of my country. This statement is meant to contrast the ignorant sentiments many Americans posted here, claiming that Bush 43 was not their president, that he stole/lost the 2000 election or that the Supreme Court elected him. These opinions were and are false and unsupportable. They were expressed here, mainly, because these people are sore losers. Well, now that a Democrat has been elected president, he has my support, and that is the way it should be after an election.

Personally, I hope Obama succeeds in turning the economy around and keeps up the fight against terrorist who attacked us, and I applaud his efforts so far (even though I don't always agree with him or Congress).


Interesting choice of words, "ignorant sentiments [...] sore losers", yet flame wars are not allowed ;)

The great thing about being an American is that you are just as entitled to your opinion of these other Americans of which you speak, as they are to their own opinions of Bush 43.

Is there some reason you think I was directing my comment to anyone in particular? My statement was not a flame, but a general observation directed toward those unnamed people who are obviously ignorant of the way presidential elections work under our Constitution. And I don't see any other way to explain the statement "not my president" except that of a "sore-loser" when he was sworn in as president of their country.

I notice that you have chosen to ignore my words of support for our new president. That is "interesting", to use your word.

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 893833 - Posted: 12 May 2009, 2:51:39 UTC - in response to Message 893777.

This series has been going on for quite a while, and I have been away from it for months. I just want to say that even though I didn't vote for him, Obama is my president and the president of my country. This statement is meant to contrast the ignorant sentiments many Americans posted here, claiming that Bush 43 was not their president, that he stole/lost the 2000 election or that the Supreme Court elected him. These opinions were and are false and unsupportable. They were expressed here, mainly, because these people are sore losers. Well, now that a Democrat has been elected president, he has my support, and that is the way it should be after an election.

Personally, I hope Obama succeeds in turning the economy around and keeps up the fight against terrorist who attacked us, and I applaud his efforts so far (even though I don't always agree with him or Congress).


Interesting choice of words, "ignorant sentiments [...] sore losers", yet flame wars are not allowed ;)

The great thing about being an American is that you are just as entitled to your opinion of these other Americans of which you speak, as they are to their own opinions of Bush 43.

Is there some reason you think I was directing my comment to anyone in particular? My statement was not a flame, but a general observation directed toward those unnamed people who are obviously ignorant of the way presidential elections work under our Constitution. And I don't see any other way to explain the statement "not my president" except that of a "sore-loser" when he was sworn in as president of their country.

I notice that you have chosen to ignore my words of support for our new president. That is "interesting", to use your word.

What is really interesting is when I read your posts I hear Liam Neeson.
____________

Join BOINC Synergy!

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 893977 - Posted: 12 May 2009, 21:41:46 UTC - in response to Message 893833.

This series has been going on for quite a while, and I have been away from it for months. I just want to say that even though I didn't vote for him, Obama is my president and the president of my country. This statement is meant to contrast the ignorant sentiments many Americans posted here, claiming that Bush 43 was not their president, that he stole/lost the 2000 election or that the Supreme Court elected him. These opinions were and are false and unsupportable. They were expressed here, mainly, because these people are sore losers. Well, now that a Democrat has been elected president, he has my support, and that is the way it should be after an election.

Personally, I hope Obama succeeds in turning the economy around and keeps up the fight against terrorist who attacked us, and I applaud his efforts so far (even though I don't always agree with him or Congress).


Interesting choice of words, "ignorant sentiments [...] sore losers", yet flame wars are not allowed ;)

The great thing about being an American is that you are just as entitled to your opinion of these other Americans of which you speak, as they are to their own opinions of Bush 43.

Is there some reason you think I was directing my comment to anyone in particular? My statement was not a flame, but a general observation directed toward those unnamed people who are obviously ignorant of the way presidential elections work under our Constitution. And I don't see any other way to explain the statement "not my president" except that of a "sore-loser" when he was sworn in as president of their country.

I notice that you have chosen to ignore my words of support for our new president. That is "interesting", to use your word.

What is really interesting is when I read your posts I hear Liam Neeson.


As Dark man or his Michael Collins role

____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 893978 - Posted: 12 May 2009, 21:47:19 UTC - in response to Message 893777.

This series has been going on for quite a while, and I have been away from it for months. I just want to say that even though I didn't vote for him, Obama is my president and the president of my country. This statement is meant to contrast the ignorant sentiments many Americans posted here, claiming that Bush 43 was not their president, that he stole/lost the 2000 election or that the Supreme Court elected him. These opinions were and are false and unsupportable. They were expressed here, mainly, because these people are sore losers. Well, now that a Democrat has been elected president, he has my support, and that is the way it should be after an election.

Personally, I hope Obama succeeds in turning the economy around and keeps up the fight against terrorist who attacked us, and I applaud his efforts so far (even though I don't always agree with him or Congress).


Interesting choice of words, "ignorant sentiments [...] sore losers", yet flame wars are not allowed ;)

The great thing about being an American is that you are just as entitled to your opinion of these other Americans of which you speak, as they are to their own opinions of Bush 43.

Is there some reason you think I was directing my comment to anyone in particular? My statement was not a flame, but a general observation directed toward those unnamed people who are obviously ignorant of the way presidential elections work under our Constitution. And I don't see any other way to explain the statement "not my president" except that of a "sore-loser" when he was sworn in as president of their country.

I notice that you have chosen to ignore my words of support for our new president. That is "interesting", to use your word.
Honestly though you set up anyone that disagrees with you as ignorant or sore losers. I won't beat a dead dog but all the evidence point to Republican stealing Florida. Just look at the protesters at the recounting site. they were all Republican staffers from DC. How did this pass muster.

Am I a sore loser, nope. W was never my president and I never supported him. Thats the glory of the system. I never have to agree with or support him. I signed no contract to that fact. Please feel free to restate your argument. and yes I do think that calling everyone that disagrees with you as a flame. A very large flame at that.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 893985 - Posted: 12 May 2009, 21:58:29 UTC - in response to Message 893977.

This series has been going on for quite a while, and I have been away from it for months. I just want to say that even though I didn't vote for him, Obama is my president and the president of my country. This statement is meant to contrast the ignorant sentiments many Americans posted here, claiming that Bush 43 was not their president, that he stole/lost the 2000 election or that the Supreme Court elected him. These opinions were and are false and unsupportable. They were expressed here, mainly, because these people are sore losers. Well, now that a Democrat has been elected president, he has my support, and that is the way it should be after an election.

Personally, I hope Obama succeeds in turning the economy around and keeps up the fight against terrorist who attacked us, and I applaud his efforts so far (even though I don't always agree with him or Congress).


Interesting choice of words, "ignorant sentiments [...] sore losers", yet flame wars are not allowed ;)

The great thing about being an American is that you are just as entitled to your opinion of these other Americans of which you speak, as they are to their own opinions of Bush 43.

Is there some reason you think I was directing my comment to anyone in particular? My statement was not a flame, but a general observation directed toward those unnamed people who are obviously ignorant of the way presidential elections work under our Constitution. And I don't see any other way to explain the statement "not my president" except that of a "sore-loser" when he was sworn in as president of their country.

I notice that you have chosen to ignore my words of support for our new president. That is "interesting", to use your word.

What is really interesting is when I read your posts I hear Liam Neeson.


As Dark man or his Michael Collins role

<-- mostly as this guy. I can already feel my jedi powers getting stronger.
____________

Join BOINC Synergy!

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2910
Credit: 6,657,487
RAC: 2,207
United States
Message 894024 - Posted: 12 May 2009, 23:17:25 UTC - in response to Message 893978.

Honestly though you set up anyone that disagrees with you as ignorant or sore losers. I won't beat a dead dog but all the evidence point to Republican stealing Florida. Just look at the protesters at the recounting site. they were all Republican staffers from DC. How did this pass muster.

Am I a sore loser, nope. W was never my president and I never supported him. Thats the glory of the system. I never have to agree with or support him. I signed no contract to that fact. Please feel free to restate your argument. and yes I do think that calling everyone that disagrees with you as a flame. A very large flame at that.

If you were and are a citizen of the United States of America then George W. Bush was your President. To claim otherwise is simply wrong. You might wish or hope for a different reality, but you're deluding yourself if you think that he was not your President.

You don't have to agree with him in all things, and I never said you did, but you cannot say something, which is patently false, and pretend it is a rational statement just because you did not like the outcome of an election. Al Gore lost, G. W. Bush won; get over it.

The real "glory of the system" is that whether your candidate wins or loses, you are still a citizen and no matter how contentious the election you should (but you are not required to) support your country. Obama, like every president, has asked for and deserves that support from all of us, not because you signed a contract, but because you are a citizen. I am willing to support my President, even though I did not vote for him. This does not mean one always has to agree and blindly obey; rational debate can contribute to the betterment of the country as well. But Obama is my President, just as G.W. Bush was President even of those who did not vote for him and did not agree with him.

On another subject, a good definition of a "flame" is: "a message in which the writer attacks another participant in overly harsh, and often personal, terms." As a moderator, if you really think that I'm flaming anyone in particular then you can do something about it. All I've really done is say things some people don't want to hear--and explained my reasons for saying those things. Please don't catagorize everything you disagree with as a flame.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12695
Credit: 7,172,071
RAC: 15,013
United States
Message 894030 - Posted: 12 May 2009, 23:33:55 UTC - in response to Message 893978.

Honestly though you set up anyone that disagrees with you as ignorant or sore losers. I won't beat a dead dog but all the evidence point to Republican stealing Florida. Just look at the protesters at the recounting site. they were all Republican staffers from DC. How did this pass muster.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ...

Am I a sore loser, nope. W was never my president and I never supported him. Thats the glory of the system. I never have to agree with or support him. I signed no contract to that fact. Please feel free to restate your argument. and yes I do think that calling everyone that disagrees with you as a flame. A very large flame at that.

If W wasn't your President, then what country are you a citizen of?
You didn't have to support him, vote for him, or call him your candidate, but he was your President.

As to that mess in Florida, the failure of Florida to set up something as simple as a way to count votes and get it done on time boggles the mind. It also is a huge lesson that most governments should not ever be in the business of getting things done right or on time or in budget.

At the peril of rehashing history the independent recount showed him the winner under the rules as they existed:
The final count showed that George W. Bush would remain as the winner of Florida's electoral vote, and therefore the presidency, under one limited set of rules - those prescribed by the Florida Supreme Court in December of 2000, and blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Bush v. Gore decision. Under these rules, Bush's margin would be diminished to 493 votes, but he would still be entitled to his office.[3]
[3] The New York Times (12 November 2001), A1.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~gpomper/FloridaRecount.doc

We can debate until the cows come home what the rules should have been. Whatever they should have been consistent and unambiguous and able to be implemented with time to spare to get the result.

____________

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 894038 - Posted: 12 May 2009, 23:46:30 UTC

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,885,205
RAC: 2,793
United States
Message 894158 - Posted: 13 May 2009, 11:28:18 UTC - in response to Message 893777.

I notice that you have chosen to ignore my words of support for our new president. That is "interesting", to use your word.


Why would I? By your own admission they were there to contrast with the words that I commented on, "This statement is meant to contrast ...", and were thus secondary. It seems to me that, rather than make a statement of support for the incumbent, the purpose of your post was to criticize the opinions of others.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile StormKing
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Nov 00
Posts: 456
Credit: 2,887,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 894284 - Posted: 13 May 2009, 19:57:24 UTC

Newspulper Headlines:

It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's a Bus!: "White House Aide Louis Caldera Loses Job Over Manhattan Flyover Fiasco Involving Air Force One" --Daily News (New York)

We Blame Global Warming: "Icy Winds Threaten U.S.-Russia Thaw" --Financial Times

Breaking News From 1933: "Germans Pessimistic, Demand Strong Leadership" --Baltic Times (Riga, Latvia)

An Inauspicious Start: "Trial Begins in Shooting Death of Defense Attorney" --Arizona Republic

News You Can Use: "Work-Life Balance a Challenge, Says Michelle Obama, but Having White House Staff Helps" --Washington Post Web site

Bottom Stories of the Day: "Study Shows Government Web Sites Lag Behind Private Sector" --FoxNews.com

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto)
____________

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2910
Credit: 6,657,487
RAC: 2,207
United States
Message 894285 - Posted: 13 May 2009, 19:57:39 UTC - in response to Message 894158.
Last modified: 13 May 2009, 20:19:47 UTC

I notice that you have chosen to ignore my words of support for our new president. That is "interesting", to use your word.

Why would I? By your own admission they were there to contrast with the words that I commented on, "This statement is meant to contrast ...", and were thus secondary. It seems to me that, rather than make a statement of support for the incumbent, the purpose of your post was to criticize the opinions of others.

That makes no sense. My post was the first in this thread after the initial disclaimer; it was not directed at you or anyone in particular and, despite your faulty logic, it was not meant to "criticize the opinions of others." It was partly meant to point out the patently false statements of others (I gave three examples of false statements). Look again at the first sentence of my post and you can see that it was primarily meant to show support for President Obama, in contrast to the rather shabby way some narrow-minded partisans had treated President G.W. Bush.

Why would you want to comment on the positive part of my message? Obviously you don't, but if you think there was nothing wrong with ignoring the main point of my post, then you might examine your own biases a little more closely.

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 894389 - Posted: 13 May 2009, 23:41:54 UTC

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 894391 - Posted: 13 May 2009, 23:43:24 UTC

Sometimes justice isn't served

By Ruben Navarrette
Union Tribune

May 13, 2009

When her fiancé and the father of her two children was beaten to death last year in Shenandoah, Pa., Crystal Dillman predicted that justice would not prevail.

“I think they might get off,” Dillman told The New York Times last August in reference to the four teenagers charged in the beating of Luis Ramirez, “because Luis was an illegal Mexican and these are 'all-American boys' on the football team who get good grades, or whatever they're saying about them. They'll find some way to let them go.”

It seems they did. In most parts of the country, the cowardly and hateful act of beating someone to death – while shouting racial slurs, according to witnesses – would be called by its proper name: murder.

Curiously though, in Pennsylvania's Schuylkill County, an all-white jury came up with another name for it: simple assault.

That's what 19-year-old Derrick Donchak and 17-year-old Brandon Piekarsky were convicted of recently after jurors threw out more serious charges of ethnic intimidation and third-degree murder in the beating death of the 25-year-old Ramirez, who had lived in Shenandoah for about a year.

This verdict makes no sense to me. When I read the comments of jury foreman Eric Macklin, it seems the jury didn't do much thinking or processing of evidence. According to Macklin, jurors were too busy indulging their prejudice and perhaps looking for a way to spare the teenagers long prison sentences.

“I believe strongly that some of the people on the jury were racist,” Macklin told reporters after the verdict. “I believe some of the people on the jury had their minds made up before the first day of the trial.”

One of the jurors, Josh Silfies, took exception to that.

“It was really not as cut and dry as a couple of white kids beat up a Mexican and killed him,” Silfies told reporters. “It's not like that. I sat there for a week and heard the testimony and heard the evidence, and I had a lot of doubt that these boys were heinous.”

A lot of what happens in the court system is all about empathy. The jury might have found it easier to relate to the teenagers sitting at the defendants' table than to an illegal immigrant from Mexico lying in the morgue.

The prosecutors didn't have to prove that the teenagers were heinous, only that they committed a heinous act. The facts spoke for themselves, unless you buy the yarn spun by defense attorneys that this was simply a “fight” that ended badly. That tends to happen when the fight is four against one.

Should we comb through the thousands of lynchings of African-Americans in the South and Hispanics in Texas and reclassify them as fights? What about the countless acts of anti-gay hate crimes that occur each year? Are those also properly thought of as scuffles that got out of hand?

As of now, it's unclear what's going to happen to Piekarsky and Donchak. Their sentencing on the assault conviction is scheduled for June 17. Another teenager, Colin Walsh, faces up to eight years in prison as part of a federal plea agreement, the details of which were sealed. A fourth was charged as a juvenile; those proceedings are also sealed.

Don't miss the irony amid this tragedy. According to media reports, Mexican immigrants such as Ramirez are going to Shenandoah to take jobs on farms and in factories. This is precisely the kind of work that, a generation or two ago, would have gone to young people looking for jobs after high school graduation. Now, these have become, so we're told in the immigration debate, “jobs Americans won't do.” And teenagers are left with too much time on their hands and too little compassion for those who work hard.

The verdict has sparked outrage around the country. Some blame the anti-Latino poison infecting talk radio and cable television. Boston radio talk-show host Jay Severin was recently suspended for calling Mexican immigrants “primitives” and “leeches” along with other inflammatory comments. Meanwhile, more than 25,000 people signed an online petition demanding that the Justice Department bring federal charges against Piekarsky and Donchak.

According to a Justice Department spokesman, the civil rights division is currently reviewing the case.

If there is evidence of a civil rights violation, the Obama administration should absolutely bring indictments. After all, a nation's greatness is determined not only by what it provides but also by what it won't allow.
____________

Join BOINC Synergy!

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24677
Credit: 522,659
RAC: 40
United States
Message 894458 - Posted: 14 May 2009, 1:43:43 UTC - in response to Message 893718.

This series has been going on for quite a while, and I have been away from it for months. I just want to say that even though I didn't vote for him, Obama is my president and the president of my country. This statement is meant to contrast the ignorant sentiments many Americans posted here, claiming that Bush 43 was not their president, that he stole/lost the 2000 election or that the Supreme Court elected him. These opinions were and are false and unsupportable.


Was George W Bush the President of the US? Yes.
Was he a good President? Some people believe he was, and others believe that he was one of the worst Presidents ever.
Was he elected by a majority of the popular vote? No.
Was the victory in Florida stolen? Possibly. The trail was so muddied that it is impossible to tell. Many believe it was.
Did the Supreme Court vote for him to be President? Yes. The vote to cut off the vote count in Florida was a vote for George W. Bush to become President.
Was George W. Bush one of the most divisive Presidents ever? Yes, the divisions in this country are more set than they were before his presidency.
____________


BOINC WIKI

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,885,205
RAC: 2,793
United States
Message 894563 - Posted: 14 May 2009, 12:19:54 UTC - in response to Message 894285.

I notice that you have chosen to ignore my words of support for our new president. That is "interesting", to use your word.

Why would I? By your own admission they were there to contrast with the words that I commented on, "This statement is meant to contrast ...", and were thus secondary. It seems to me that, rather than make a statement of support for the incumbent, the purpose of your post was to criticize the opinions of others.

That makes no sense. My post was the first in this thread after the initial disclaimer; it was not directed at you or anyone in particular and, despite your faulty logic, it was not meant to "criticize the opinions of others." It was partly meant to point out the patently false statements of others (I gave three examples of false statements). Look again at the first sentence of my post and you can see that it was primarily meant to show support for President Obama, in contrast to the rather shabby way some narrow-minded partisans had treated President G.W. Bush.

Why would you want to comment on the positive part of my message? Obviously you don't, but if you think there was nothing wrong with ignoring the main point of my post, then you might examine your own biases a little more closely.


If your intent was to display unambiguous support for the incumbent, then why state it was meant to serve another purpose? If you had simply said "I support the incumbent even though I did not vote for him", which, for an as yet undefined reason, you state is a positive part of your message, then my comments on it as a criticism of unnamed other would clearly not hold.

Stating my logic is faulty does not make it so, you told readers how your words were meant to be interpreted, and that was as a contrast to comments by others with which you clearly disagree. That is how I read the post. A word count will show there is greater stress what the positive aspect is to be compared with than the positive aspect itself.

FWIW I was not a citizen in 2000 or 2004, so I did not consider your statement as directed at me.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2910
Credit: 6,657,487
RAC: 2,207
United States
Message 894799 - Posted: 14 May 2009, 23:37:41 UTC - in response to Message 894563.
Last modified: 14 May 2009, 23:41:40 UTC

I notice that you have chosen to ignore my words of support for our new president. That is "interesting", to use your word.

Why would I? By your own admission they were there to contrast with the words that I commented on, "This statement is meant to contrast ...", and were thus secondary. It seems to me that, rather than make a statement of support for the incumbent, the purpose of your post was to criticize the opinions of others.

That makes no sense. My post was the first in this thread after the initial disclaimer; it was not directed at you or anyone in particular and, despite your faulty logic, it was not meant to "criticize the opinions of others." It was partly meant to point out the patently false statements of others (I gave three examples of false statements). Look again at the first sentence of my post and you can see that it was primarily meant to show support for President Obama, in contrast to the rather shabby way some narrow-minded partisans had treated President G.W. Bush.

Why would you want to comment on the positive part of my message? Obviously you don't, but if you think there was nothing wrong with ignoring the main point of my post, then you might examine your own biases a little more closely.

If your intent was to display unambiguous support for the incumbent, then why state it was meant to serve another purpose? If you had simply said "I support the incumbent even though I did not vote for him", which, for an as yet undefined reason, you state is a positive part of your message, then my comments on it as a criticism of unnamed other would clearly not hold.

I am not aware of any rule that says I can’t have more than one “purpose” per post. I simply pointed out the contrast between people who made such ignorant and factually incorrect statements (the examples I gave) and my position regarding our new president. It is much more constructive to support even those whom one did not vote for than to spend one’s energy constantly attacking and trying to tear down whatever your opponent does. Making false statements, like the ones I cited, is not helpful.

Stating my logic is faulty does not make it so, you told readers how your words were meant to be interpreted, and that was as a contrast to comments by others with which you clearly disagree. That is how I read the post.

True, stating something does not make it so, but I went beyond that and gave an explanation. If you don't understand what I said, that does not make my statement false.

. . . A word count will show there is greater stress what the positive aspect is to be compared with than the positive aspect itself.

I don’t understand that sentence.

FWIW I was not a citizen in 2000 or 2004, so I did not consider your statement as directed at me.

And indeed, it was not. But you did accuse me of flaming, and you did ignore the positive part of my message, so I responded. Even now you seem to say my message had bad intentions. All I have done is state my support for my country's president while pointing out a little history of the sentiments expressed in this thread (series), which provided an object lesson in divisiveness and bad citizenship. If you can’t see that point, well, maybe the fault lies with you.

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21790
Credit: 2,510,901
RAC: 0
United States
Message 894812 - Posted: 15 May 2009, 0:56:39 UTC - in response to Message 894799.

I am not aware of any rule that says I can’t have more than one “purpose” per post.

I am confidant one has been made up in the interim.
____________

Join BOINC Synergy!

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 12 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Political Thread [23]

Copyright © 2014 University of California