Vegita-
You are right! I concede that you are correct. Do you feel better?
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
BB-
I am staring to think I’m on your’s and Zeb’s ignore list? My feelings are hurt![/quote]
Elk:
No, I wouldn’t ignore your posts – you try to engage in conversation, and even though we obviously disagree you’re a funny guy.
As for playing the Devil’s Advocate, I can only spend so many billable hours on this site per day, so I’ll have to decline for now. Or I could get all Joe Pesci on you a la Goodfellas: “Am I a clown, here to amuse you?” =-)
More seriously though, you seem to deflect all explanations of for the accusations thrown at Bush as basically being spin, but you don’t seem to require much proof for the accusations themselves. I know we’re dealing with politicians, but I think it’s better to start from the standpoint that you have two basically smart, capable individuals who have differing views of what is best for the country and build a discussion from there. A lot of the attacks on Bush seem to me to spring from a basic outlook of “Bush is bad, so this bad sounding thing is probably true.”
lol, posting rules? Wow, we have some uptight people in here.
Playing devils advocate is not “lying”… especially when you identify doing so as such.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
“Bush is bad, so this bad sounding thing is probably true.”[/quote]
By god BB, I think you’re starting to catch on!
As someone familiar with military records, I can say that our filing system sucks ass and lost records are the rule rather than exception. Don’t see why his record would be that interesting anyway
I always read Vroom and Elkhntr1’s posts. My reference in an earlier thread to ignoring certain posters was not at all aimed at either of them.
I think that those who spew hate, be it at one race of people, or at one particular party, or even one man (the President) are wrong (I too have been guilty of this in the past). Therefore, I will exercise my right to ignore those posters.
Personally attacking a poster who disagrees with you is wrong. I have seen some attack Lumpy personally for his political beliefs and I disagree with this. I enjoy his posts and most of the others who voice a liberal view. These people are far from “evil” and in fact many times have a valid point worthy of debate. I am sure that they also love this country every bit as much as I do and want to see this country move forward. We just happen to disagree on the methodology in which to move forward. That makes for great political discussion.
If the level of debate is raised on this forum, what’s wrong with that? Again, I say lets debate the issues!
No Elk it doesn’t make me happy to have you agree with me, I will be less irritated when you put your money where your mouth is and stop posting personal attacks, and off topic drivel. (by the way I used to run cross country and if you have never run cross country than you have no right to decide who our president is)
Vroom what is the point of playing devils advocate? I’ll agree there is no harm in doing so if you state that is what you are up to. Elk said it as if it were a requirement that some conservatives have never fulfilled.
If you ask me it’s a deflection tactic he uses often when he feels his side needs to be bailed out. This is all I am going to say on this.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
Veg, I wouldn’t presume to speak for Elk, but I can see that sometimes the “right” is a tad rigid in their thinking.
Yes, yes, I know, there are militant leftist who’d snap if they tried to bend a bit as well.
I know I often try to post thoughts on an issue these days… showing how something can be viewed. Even these are attacked regularly. There are AT LEAST two sides to every issue… it just seems that those on the left are more willing to attempt to see things from the point of view of the right from time to time.
Heck, generally when I offer agreement in a post, I still get argued against – why I cannot fathom.
Rainjack said
[quote]Gerrymandering is a tried and true method the Texas Democrats have used for years for political gain, regardless of where the funds came from.
Much of this is just the democrats crying too loudly about having to sleep in the bed they themselves have made. [/quote]
Horseshit. The voting districts are drawn up every 10 years, by Texas law. This is done to reflect the changes in a community’s population.
However, with the Republicans taking control of the Texas legislature, they decided to redraw the districts in their own favor… even though they had just been redrawn only two years ago. What this does is stack the deck in the Republican’s favor, for future elections.
I think a good rule of thumb for a lot of partisan discussions is How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot? For example, if the Democrats regain control of the Texas legislature during the next election, will it be fair for Democrats to redraw (AGAIN) the district boundaries, to stack the deck in Democrat’s favor?
If you say ‘yes’ when the Republicans do it but “no” when the Democrats do it, you are nothing but a hypocrite.
I can’t think of anything more DESTRUCTIVE to our political system than letting partisan political hacks change our basic political system, based on who is currently in power!!!
Ok. I didn’t want to hijack this thread, but Lumpy’s bullshit has pissed me off. Even if redrawing the disticts ends with DeLay in jail, it is the best thing that has ever happened in the Republic of Texas.
I live in a shithole district on the border that is, of course, run buy democrats who have instilled in the people here that they should vote the pulunga. Because democrats have always controlled the border, they have never seen a need to improve ANYTHING here. All they do is appeal to the pulunga-mentality. Lumpy, do you even uderstand the concept of a Colonia? Do you have any clue of what it is like for the migrant workers who have toiled here under democratic rule for the last 50 years? Now that my district is mixed in with San Antonio and Austin (feel free to translate that as WHITE people) maybe something will be done to improve the standard of living here on the border.
Gerrymandered districts is one of the three biggest threats to representative democracy that we have today, IMHO. It’s problematic on both sides because it creates “safe” districts in which the reps don’t need to be responsive to their constituents.
The other two, BTW, are a judiciary that is activist on political questions and legislates from the bench or reads things into the Consitution, and non-elected agencies making rules that are enforceable as law.
Boston, great point! The FDA is a prime example of a very powerful non-elected body.
Their mandate often conflicts with the rights of the public and the courts have had to slap their wrists multiple times.
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Horseshit. The voting districts are drawn up every 10 years, by Texas law. This is done to reflect the changes in a community’s population.
However, with the Republicans taking control of the Texas legislature, they decided to redraw the districts in their own favor… even though they had just been redrawn only two years ago. What this does is stack the deck in the Republican’s favor, for future elections.
I think a good rule of thumb for a lot of partisan discussions is How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot? For example, if the Democrats regain control of the Texas legislature during the next election, will it be fair for Democrats to redraw (AGAIN) the district boundaries, to stack the deck in Democrat’s favor?
[/quote]
Lumpy -
This is the first time since the civil war that the democrats have not had control in Texas.
The majority party in Texas sets the congressional district lines.
I never said it was right - just that for the first time, the republicans are doing EXACTLY WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE. Now the Dems are pissed and making much ado about not getting their way.
Lumpy-
You should stay out of subject matter you are obviously ignorant about.